You are on page 1of 262

CMA Publication No.

230


Agricultural Machinery Industry in India: A Study of Growth,
Market Structure, and Business Strategies















Sukhpal Singh











Centre for Management in Agriculture (CMA)
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA)
Ahmedabad-380015





April, 2009




ii
Foreword

The Centre Ior Management in Agriculture (CMA) at the Indian Institute oI
Management, Ahmedabad has been actively involved in applied, policy, and problem
solving research on management in agriculture and allied sectors since its inception. It
has conducted studies on various aspects oI the agricultural and rural economy like
WTO related issues, Iood quality, contract Iarming, Iisheries, organic Iarming,
agricultural marketing, marketing oI agricultural inputs, Iorestry, irrigation, agricultural
Iinance, dairying and rural development programmes. The research eIIorts span various
Iunctional areas oI management like production, procurement, processing, marketing,
strategy, and monitoring and implementation, including policy analysis.

The CMA has been doing studies on the marketing management and policy issues in
agricultural input sector Ior quite some time now. But, the agricultural machinery
industry as a subsector was not studied more recently despite the Iact that it has
witnessed many new players and policy changes. ThereIore, it is important to examine
the nature and dynamics oI the agricultural machinery industry, including second hand
tractor markets, Irom multi-stakeholder perspective i.e. manuIacturers, dealers and
Iarmer users. The present study Agricultural Machinery Industry in India` by Dr.
Sukhpal Singh examines this industry comprehensively by taking up the three major
subsectors i.e. tractors, combine harvestors and micro irrigation equipment. It not only
examines company level issues and strategies but also dealer level issues and Iarmer
level purchase and use oI the machines and equipment including sale and purchase oI
old tractors.

It takes a case study approach and Iocuses on new players in the tractor industry
especially those who have graduated into tractors Irom threshers and combines. It
examines the organisation oI marketing in three products and analyses the problems
being Iaced by various players in each oI the product chains especially Iarmer owners
and users. In combine harvestors, it examines the operations oI somewhat small scale
and localised manuIacturers in the major pocket oI this industry in Punjab. In micro-
irrigation, it examines dealer and Iarmer user level issues besides assessment oI
company perIormance and policy issues. I am sure the study will prove useIul to policy
makers in supporting the various players in the industry and in Iinding out ways to
promote mechanisation Ior sustainable agricultural development.






Ahmedabad Samar K Datta
April 23, 2009 Chairman, CMA


iii
Acknowledgements

Mechanisation has an important role to play in Indian agriculture. Given that levels oI
mechainsation in Indian Iarming are low per se, there is scope to improve level oI
mechanization. The nature and degree oI mechanization varies across crops and
regions in India. Some regions and crops are over mechanised given the labour
surplus nature oI the agricultural economy and the other regions have not achieved
even a minimum exposure to mechanization. In this context, it is important to
understand the nature, growth and Iunctioning oI diIIerent segments oI the
agricultural machinery industry so that constraints to mechanization and appropriate
measures to direct mechanization could be identiIied. This study attempts an analysis
oI the growth, structure and business strategies oI major segments oI the industry i.e.
tractors, combine harvestors and micro irrigation equipment. These account Ior bulk
oI the agricultural machinery industry in India and are high cost machines and
equipments. These are also relatively new in that they are either newly emerging
sectors like micro irrigation and combines or have attracted new players like in
tractors which has changed the nature and degree oI competition in the industry. The
tractor industry has witnessed the entry oI many new players who have upgraded
themselves Irom thresher or combine manuIacturers to the manuIacturers oI tractors
and have carved a niche. Due to this, these players as against traditional players are
the Iocus oI this study.

An attempt has been made to understand the completer dynamics oI the three
industries tractors, combine and micro irrigation by understanding the various links
in their chains like manuIacturing agencies, dealers and Iarmers Irom their own
perspectives to gain a complete understanding oI the growth, constraints and
opportunities in the sector. That has helped to identiIy various policy measures to
encourage mechanisation and orderly growth oI the various sub-sectors oI the
industry.

Many people have assisted in the successIul completion oI the study. It is important to
mention who have played a direct role in it. I am grateIul to Mr. Satish Kumar Ior
collection oI data Irom tractor dealers and Iarmers in Punjab, tractor dealers in Gujarat
and combine manuIacturers in Punjab and tabulation oI the same. Mr. Jayesh Talati
assisted in the collection oI data Irom micro irrigation agencies, their dealers and
Iarmers in Gujarat and processing and analysis oI data. The Ministry oI Agriculture,
Government oI India provided Iinancial support Ior this study. I also acknowledge the
support provided by the administration oI the IIMA and the CMA Ior this study. I am
grateIul to the managers and the owners oI the tractor, combine and micro irrigation
equipment companies including the GGRCL Ior providing relevant inIormation Ior
the study about their operations, and to the dealers oI these companies and the Iarmer
owners and users oI the machines and the equipment.

I am extremely grateIul to Dr. Mohanana Pillai oI CDS, Thiruvananthapuram, Dr.
Surjit Singh oI IDS, Jaipur and Dr. Lakhwinder Singh oI Deptt. oI Economics,
Punjabi University, Patiala; Ior very insightIul and timely comments on the report
which has helped in making the report more Iocused. the I hope that the study will
generate adequate debate and discussion on this very important agricultural input
industry i.e. agricultural machinery industry so that the industry can contribute its
iv
might Ior the growth oI Indian agriculture which is crucial to the livelihoods oI
millions oI producers and workers.


(Sukhpal Singh)




































v
Contents

Chapter Title Page

Foreword ii

Acknowledgements iii

1 Introduction 1

2 Growth and Use oI Agricultural Machinery in India 26

3 Indian Tractor Industry: growth, structure and
dynamics 60

4 Distribution and Marketing oI Tractors: Dealer
perspectives 84

5 Purchase and Use oI Tractors 110

6 Combine Harvester Companies: proIile and
business strategies 127

7 Purchase and Use oI Combine Harvesters: A
Iarmer level perspective 146

8 Marketing oI MIS Equipment in India: Case
Studies Irom Gujarat 189

9 Distribution oI Micro-irrigation Equipment:
Dealer level analysis 213

10 Purchase and Use oI Micro-irrigation Equipment
in Gujarat : Farmer perspectives 228

11 Conclusion and Recommendations 249


ReIerences 255


1
Chapter 1
Introduction

1. Background

Agricultural machinery industry is an important segment oI the agribusiness sector in
India and plays a crucial role in Iurthering agricultural development. In the organised
(ASI) sector, agricultural machinery industry accounted Ior 0.6 oI all Iactories,
0.26 oI Iixed capital, 0.43 oI employment, 0.76 oI inputs, 0.79 oI output and
0.98 oI value added in 1997-98. In Ioreign trade, it accounted Ior 0.03 oI exports
and 0.01 oI imports in 2001-02 with more than 50 oI the exports being to Nigeria,
USA, and Bangladesh in 2002-03. The growth rate oI imports in the nineties had been
higher than those oI exports. Haryana, Punjab, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra accounted
Ior bulk oI the Iactories (Kaur, 2004). There have been some studies oI the impact oI
liberalisation on this industry and its adjustment strategies (Pillai, 2000).

Agricultural machinery and equipment industry comprises oI a large number oI
segments even in the organised sector. Tractor industry is one oI the most capital
intensive industries in agricultural machinery industry with more than halI a dozen
major players in the market at present. In combine harvesters which got manuIactured
in India in 1970 Ior the Iirst time, Punjab occupies a dominant place with more than
87 oI the units located in the state. They were producing two types oI combines-
selI-propelled and tractor operated. The other major parts oI the industry are electric
motors, diesel engines, pump sets, power tillers, drip and sprinkler systems, and
tractor driven implements. Many oI these industries are characterized by
subcontracting and ancillary systems where small units work Ior the larger parent
units supplying components or perIorming speciIic tasks in manuIacturing process. In
2000-01, there were 2226000 tractors, 127000 power tillers, 151000 combine
harvesters, 3090000 threshers, 109000 planters, 2740000 seed drills, 2812000
cultivars, 2881000 disc harrows, and 311000 power sprayers (Venkateshwarlu, n.d.).

1.1. Tractorisation in India
At present, the level oI mechanisation in India is quite low compared with other
countries. India was the largest tractor market in the world but ranked 8
th
in terms oI
2
tractor population. By 2003, the tractor density in India was 12 tractors per 1000
hectares oI GCA compared with world average oI above 50. But, tractor density in
Punjab was about 100 tractors. Punjab which had more than Iour lakh tractors in 2003
accounting Ior 25 oI total tractors in the country (Singh, 2000), it is said, needed
only 1.5 lakh going by its area and was thus over-tractorised. On the other hand,
tractor industry in India experienced a slump in sales during this period (EPW, 2003).
This raises issues related to the viable Iarm size Ior tractor ownership and the bank
lending policy Ior such costly agricultural machines and alternative uses oI such
Iinance Ior other inputs which may be more suitable Ior small Iarmers. This is so as
the price oI the tractor is very huge and this makes credit an important determinant oI
tractor sales as 80-90 oI the total tractor sales are due to bank credit. As per the
NABARD norms, any Iarmer with 8 acres oI land can take a tractor loan which is to
be repaid in 9 years with 12.5 interest on the principal amount. The tractor is
hypothecated as a primary security and there is registered mortgage oI the land as a
security against non-repayment (Singh, 2004). Various concessions by the
government oI India have also helped the small Iarmers in purchase oI tractors which
include exemption in the excise duty on tractors oI less than 1800 cc engine capacity,
Minimum land holding size required Ior a tractor loan was reduced Irom 10 to 8 and
later even 4 acres and the repayment period was extended Irom 7 to 9 years. But,
optimal land holding Ior a viable tractor use is 8-10 hectares Ior 25 HP tractor, and
25-30 hectares Ior 35 HP tractor, iI used only Ior Iarming purposes (Raghuram, 2000).

There is both a replacement as well new demand Ior tractors. The demand Ior tractors
in India is dictated by several Iactors like, monsoons, availability oI irrigation and
credit, Iarmers' disposable incomes, cropping patterns, and the minimum support price
Ior Iarm produce. The major Iactors in the demand Ior tractors in India have been
Iound to be gross irrigated area (cropping intensity), real price oI tractor, demand Ior
tractors in the previous year, and area under high yielding varieties (Gandhi and Patel,
1997) besides land holding and credit availability (Raghuram, 2000). But, in some
regions like Punjab it is the cropping intensity, cultivated area, and credit availability
along with demand Ior tractors in the previous year and social considerations which
determine demand Ior tractors (Gandhi and Patel, 1997; Sharma and Grover, 1998).
Most oI these are agronomic and agro-economic Iactors. Companies have expanded
capacities in expectations oI good demand (Raghuram, 2000) and some companies
3
utilized 100 oI their capacity during the 1990s (Gandhi and Patel, 1997). Attracted
by the earlier growth Iigures in tractor industry, at least three new players, Bajaj
Tempo, New Holland, and Case oI USA (with M&M) have set up shop in India. The
average annual sales Ior the period 1999-2000 to 2003-04 were oI the order oI
2,37,747 tractors with maximum Irom UP (58000) (Economic Survey, 2003-04).

But, during the late 1990s, tractor markets in the north reached a saturation point, with
growth rates in Punjab and Haryana hovering around 1-2, and the northern states oI
Punjab, Haryana and U.P. accounting Ior 44 oI total sales compared with 54 a Iew
years beIore (Raghuram, 2000). Also, most oI the sales in this region are replacement
sales. First time buyers are comparatively insigniIicant (Agriculture & Industry
Survey, March 1998). Even iI Iarmers buy new tractors, it is largely to obtain a loan
Irom a bank to use Ior other purposes as most oI the new tractors are directly taken to
the tractor mandis` and sold at a discount oI as much Rs. 50,000 per tractor. The
tractor mandis where old and new tractors are sold are a common weekly aIIair in
most oI the towns oI Punjab, especially in the cotton belt. There are more than a
dozen tractor markets mainly in this cotton belt, which Iacilitate buyers and sellers oI
second hand tractors in quick transactions (Singh, 2004).

On the other hand, the southern and western markets (with shares oI 10 and 20
respectively earlier) are now growing. Agriculture in these two areas presents great
scope Ior mechanisation. The soil here is quite diIIerent to the Indo-gangetic plains.
It is basically harder and requires more powerIul machines, i.e. tractors with higher
HP. BeIore 1975, there were hardly any big HP tractors sold. It is only now that the
market has evolved. The Iarmer has also realised that the cost per HP is lower in the
case oI the high HP tractors. It is a convergence oI technology, customer aspirations
and economy that has driven the change (Agriculture & Industrv Survev, March
1998).

Further, the most mechanised states oI Punjab, and Haryana and parts oI UP have
seen a transIormation in landholding pattern in the last three decades with the splitting
oI the Iamilies and land. Nevertheless, the requirement oI tractor in these states has
been steadily growing due to reverse tenancy and new crops. The usage being
universal, the ownership oI tractors is now extending to all segments oI land holdings.
4
Tractor is now considered to be a production machine and an investment, and used
extensively Ior agriculture and Ior other purposes by hiring out (Singh, 2004).

1.1.1 Buyer Behaviour and Underutilisation of Tractors
It is well known that the sales oI tractors are credit dependent. ThereIore, the Iarmer
demand Ior tractors is realised largely due to credit Iacility availability. Further, past
sales oI a brand also aIIect its Iuture sales as Iarmers go by the popularity oI a tractor
in their area. This is Iurther reinIorced by the aIter-sales service Iacility oIIered by the
companies through dealers, price oI the tractor, eIIiciency oI Iuel consumption,
maintenance cost, and resale value oI the tractor. Sometimes, Iactors like design or
look oI the body oI the tractor and the driver convenience also aIIect brand and model
choice (Singh, 2004; ICRA, n.d.).

Tractors have entered Indian Iarming pervasively owing to their Iunctional versatility
and vastly superior outturn oI work. But quite oIten, they are Iound to be
underutilised which aIIects their overall economics adversely (Singh, 2004). No
speciIic relationship seems to exist between Iarm size and tractor size. Tractors are
purchased not only Ior own Iarm work but to cater to custom work too (Gandhi and
Patel, 1997). Tillage, threshing and transportation oI Iarm produce and inputs
constitute the major activities Ior which tractor is utilised. Together these activities
account Ior 90 95 tractor time. However, transport oI people and material alone
takes away 60 oI a tractor`s liIe and only 40 is spent on the Iield. The overall
utilisation oI available operational tractor capacity varies directly with Iarm size.
However, over 40 oI available tractor capacity remains unutilised (Singh and Sidhu,
1990). An average Iarmer Iinds work Ior his tractor Ior less than 400 hours in a year
as against the norm oI 1000 hours recommended by bankers to recover the Iixed
investment cost. Further, out oI these 400 hours, less than 300 hours constitute
strictly on Iarm operations and the remaining 100 hours are devoted to marketing oI
produce and purchase oI inputs, custom hiring and social activities (Murthy, 1999).

Farm size, cropped area, cropping pattern and intensity, cultivation technology,
captive versus custom use mode, etc. inIluence the return on investment in tractor.
The break-even point oI tractor operation varies directly with tractor size. To operate
a tractor on no-proIit no-loss basis, a minimum area should be available which varies
5
with the size oI the tractor. Below this break-even value, it is not advisable to
purchase a tractor. FulIillment oI peak seasonal capacity again requires certain
minimum cropped hectares. This calls Ior critical review oI the investment policy and
the loan policies to check over-investment on tractors. There is a higher return on
investment in tractor in situations oI extensive use oI crucial inputs like good quality
seeds, Iertilizers and irrigation (Balishter and Singh, 1997). But, interest on the loan
obtained Ior purchase oI tractor is one oI the biggest cost components oI cost at the
Iarmer level which accounted Ior 30 oI the annual cost oI the tractor (Singh and
Sidhu, 1990).

1.1.2 Segments in Tractor Market
The tractor market segments can be in terms oI the power conIiguration. In India
there are Iive categories based on the engine horsepower (HP) -- under 20 HP, 21-30
HP, 31-40 HP, 41-50 HP and over 51 HP. OI these Iive sub-segments within the
industry, more than 55 oI the total sales was accounted Ior by the 31-40 HP segment
in 2000 (Raghuram, 2000; ICRA, n.d.). In recent months, changes seem to be taking
place. Demand Ior higher HP tractors is expected to increase with choices shiIting to
high-powered tractors since they can be used Ior a variety oI purposes. The demand
Ior small HP tractors started when the Iarmers made primary transition Irom bullocks.
Now the Iarmers have moved into higher HP tractors. Two Iactors are considered
responsible Ior this. First, there has been erosion oI the huge price diIIerential
between high and low HP tractors Iollowing a revision in the excise duty structure by
the government. Second, there has been a shiIt in geographical demand patterns. Till
recently, maximum number oI tractors has been sold in the belt consisting oI Punjab,
Haryana and Uttar Pardesh (60). The Iertility oI land and the resultant aIIluence oI
Iarmers have been the main reasons Ior this. Further, there are speciIic geographical
segments Ior particular brands and HP oI tractors in each state depending on the
cropping pattern and the size oI land holdings.

1.1.3 Market Structure and Nature of Competition
The Indian tractor industry has been traditionally dominated by six major players.
But, among them, it is quite competitive (Raghuram, 2000) as indicated by the
concentration ratios (55 Ior 3-Iirm and 68 Ior 4-Iirm). Mahindra & Mahindra, TAFE,
Escorts, Eicher, HMT, and Punjab Tractors Limited are major players in the market
6
(ICRA, n.d.). Apart Irom these, there are smaller ones such as Gujarat Tractors and
Haryana Tractors. There are also a Iew players in the unorganised sector concentrated
in the Punjab-Haryana belt, which specialise in the used tractors industry. The overall
market leader among these old guards is M & M, with a market share oI 27.52. The
company has a presence across the three major categories oI 25 HP, 35 HP and 45
HP. (It has yet to establish itselI in the higher HP ranges). Moreover M & M has a
strong presence in the western and southern markets consisting oI Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

Arrival oI MNC tractor majors like New Holland, and John Deere is bound to shake
up the existing "big six". These MNCs have entering the Indian market with higher
HP tractors just when the demand Ior higher HP tractors is increasing. The
worldwide demand is more in the high HP segments, ranging between 65 HP and 200
HP. Multinationals have strong products in the high HP ranges, while the 35 HP
range is not their specialty. Most oI the new MNC ventures in India are coming into
the 75 and 80 HP range. Given the current `boom time' market sentiments in the
tractor industry, the entry oI multinationals and the re-entry oI Ford range under the
`parental guidance' oI New Holland could unsettle the market balance.

1.2 Micro Irrigation in India

Micro-irrigation includes drip, sprinkler, mulching, green houses, and perIorated
earthenware pipes. It is practiced mainly to increase water use eIIiciency in
agriculture. It was originally designed Ior growing vegetable crops in Israel, which is
also the pioneer in this new technique. Basically, drip and sprinkler systems are Iairly
simple technologies that maximize water-use eIIiciency by delivering water to plants,
where and when they need it. Drip systems are composed oI a network oI porous or
perIorated piping (usually plastic) to deliver water, on or below the soil surIace,
directly to crop roots. Sprinkler systems require higher pressure and deliver water (by
spray) to plant leaves, instead oI roots. In each case, water is applied Irequently and in
low doses to maintain optimal moisture conditions Ior the crops and in the process,
minimizing the potential Ior salinization (Behr and Naik, 1999). Drip irrigation is the
new version oI pot irrigation known Ior centuries where an earthen porous pot oI
water with a small hole at the bottom is buried near a plant, a Ioot or so deep near the
7
root zone, with a lid to keep the soil out and to replenish the water once in several
days. A mulch oI stones, leaves, twigs, and grass would slow down evaporation and
keep the soil around the plant moist, and thus, irrigation could be reduced
(Ranganathan, 2003).

1.2.1 Logic for Micro-irrigation in India
Since agriculture sector in India consumes about 85 oI the available Iresh water,
eIIective utilization oI water in agricultural activity is most desirable (Anonymous,
2003). The water use eIIiciency (WUE), in Indian agriculture is the lowest (30-40)
in the world against a high oI 55 in China. This requires a paradigm shiIt in water
conservation and thus invites micro irrigation (MI) industry to play a catalytic role
(CACL, 2004). In the micro irrigation system, the water use eIIiciency varies Irom 70
to 95 which is just 35 to 40 in the traditional irrigation techniques i.e. Ilood
irrigation owing to large seepage, evaporation, distribution, conveyance losses, etc.
(Michael and Ojha, 1997). Unlike the Ilood method oI irrigation, drip can be
eIIiciently operated in all types oI grounds-undulating terrains, rolling lands, hilly
areas, shallow soils, and areas which have saline water. Drip irrigation has many
advantages over Ilood irrigation; water saving and yield increase being the Ioremost
among them (Table 1.1). In drip system, conveyance and distribution losses could be
minimized substantially since water is supplied at the root zone oI the crops.
Evaporation oI water too is much less in this system. The rate oI water saving varies
with the nature oI crops, condition and quality oI the soil, etc. The yield increase due
to drip system varies Irom a low oI 2 in cabbage and radish to as high as 98 Ior
pomegranate, and water saving Irom a low oI 36 in water melon to a high oI 79
in beet root. (Narayanamoothry, 1997).

Drip system also helps in the vegetative growth oI crops, early maturity oI crops and
in improving quality oI produce. In summary, the comparative advantages oI drip
irrigation over the Ilood method is that water saving is higher in this method by 40-
100, irrigation eIIiciency 80-90 compared with only 30-50 in Ilood method,
and input costs lower. Besides, weed problem is almost nil, even saline water can be
used, disease and pest problems are less, there is no water logging, water control is
easy and high, and Iertiliser use eIIiciency is very high. Further, yield increase is 20-
8
100 higher though cost oI capital is also almost double, but beneIit cost ratio many
times higher (Narayanamoorthy, 1997).
Table 1.1: Yield Increase and Water Saving with Drip Irrigation
Crop Yield increase () Water Saving ()
Banana 52 45
Grapes 23 48
Pomegranate 98 45
Tomato 50 39
Watermelon 88 36
Ladies Iinger 16 40
Brinjal 14 53
Bitter gourd 39 53
Ridge gourd 17 59
Cabbage 2 60
Papaya 75 68
Radish 2 77
Beet Root 7 79
Chilies 44 62
Sweet potato 39 60
Source: INCID given in Chopra and Moshawir, 2004

Gujarat Green Revolution Company Limited (GGRCL) undertook a pilot experiment
oI drip irrigation system in 30 hectares land involving 56 Iarmers near Padra, oI
Baroda district and in Palanpur Taluka oI Banaskantha District, Gujarat beIore
implementing the state sponsored MIS project. The crops under experiment were
Cotton, Castor, Chilly, Bhindi (Okra), Banana, CauliIlower, Cow pea and Mung. The
pilot experiment generated very encouraging results in terms oI water and energy
savings by 40-60 and 37-38 , respectively. Besides, production expenditure
reduced by 9-25, and both crop production and income increased by 25-50.
GGRCL also highlights additional beneIits such as Iertilizer savings by 25-30 ,
savings in cost oI pest, disease and weed management by 15-20, makes possible use
oI saline water Ior irrigation, makes undulating land cultivable, prevent soil erosion,
due to regulated water supply crop plants can complete all metabolic processes at
appropriate time and thus quality oI produce is better, while promoting the MIS
(Source: GGRCL, Baroda).

There are many compelling reasons Ior bringing more area under drip irrigation.
India has been able to achieve selI suIIiciency in Iood production through depletion oI
9
its precious resources. Further, water scarcity problems are growing in many parts oI
India, more so in the western parts. Improving water productivity in agriculture
would be a key strategy when water becomes scarce. Given India`s Iood policy, the
nation`s ability to produce Iood Ior the growing population in the coming decades
would heavily depend on improving the eIIiciency oI use oI irrigation water, which
will not be possible unless technologies like drip irrigation become more versatile and
get adopted Ior some oI the water intensive conventional Iield crops. The water
available Ior irrigation has been steadily declining since most oI the states have
already exploited their easily available surIace water sources Ior irrigation. Any
Iurther exploitation will call Ior construction oI new dams and reservoirs, which
means huge Iresh investment, not to speak oI adverse environmental impact. Under
the circumstances, groundwater is the only source leIt, whose use again has been
increasing continuously thanks to rapid commercialization oI agriculture and
cultivation oI high water-consuming crops. The exploitation oI groundwater is
crossing socially acceptable limits in agriculturally advanced states like Punjab and
Haryana. Water has been used highly ineIIiciently in Punjab agriculture. In the mid
1980s, there was wastage oI water to the extent oI 30 (Bhatia, 1987). In Punjab,
water table is Ialling by up to one meter per year (Chopra and Bathla, 2004). Already
90 oI the 138 blocks oI the state have been declared black in terms oI water table
Ialling at an alarming rate in these areas (Sidhu, 2002). It is Iound that 93 oI the paddy
Iarmers had tube wells and 44 oI them had been aIIected adversely due to the decline
in water table. These Iarmers had to sometimes deepen their tube wells or place the
pump sets at a lower place ore in the well itselI. This meant an extra cost oI Rs. 2000/-
Ior deepening the tube well during the early 1990s and Rs. 4000/- during the late 1990s
compared to that during the 1980s (Singh and Kalra, 2002). Now, there is excessive
dependence on ground water Ior irrigation which accounts Ior 70 oI the irrigated area.

The exploitation oI groundwater has also been increasing alarmingly in some parts oI
Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and some Union Territories. In such a
scenario, over-exploitation can be easily controlled by switching more areas to drip
irrigation (Narayanamoorthy, 1997). One oI the signiIicant beneIits that Iarmers
obtain Irom the use oI drips is the improved germination rate. The use oI drip
irrigation increases the germination rate Irom 60-65 in the case oI conventional
Iurrow irrigation to 90-100 . This is mainly due to the ability to sow in dry soil with
10
the use oI drip irrigation while pre-irrigation is required Ior sowing with Iurrow
irrigation. Pre-irrigation makes sowing work more tedious and eIIort intensive. The
higher germination rate translates into beneIits oI saving on labour costs incurred Ior
the gap Iilling sowing process (in the spots oI Iailed sowing) with conventional
Iurrow irrigation and also on cost oI seeds required Ior gap Iilling (Sakthivadivel and
Bhamoriya, 2004).

1.2.2Potential for micro irrigation in India
By 2004, only about 0.5 million hectares had been covered under MI against a
potential oI 69 million hectares (CACL, 2004). In India, almost 1.5 Lakh hectares oI
Iruit crops and 2.5 Lakh hectares oI vegetable crops are being added annually under
drip irrigation (Khanna, 2004). India has enormous potential Ior drip irrigation. In
Iact, with the available technology, it can be used eIIiciently Ior some 80 crops
including sugarcane, Iruits, Iibres, nuts, oilseeds, orchards, plantation crops, spices,
vegetables, cotton, etc. Among these, sugarcane is one oI the water-intensive crops
which can be cultivated under drip irrigation. Currently sugarcane is cultivated in
nearly 3.7 mh. in India and the area has been increasing steadily in the groundwater
tract as it brings better returns. The entire area under sugarcane crop, which is
currently under Ilood method oI irrigation, can be brought under the drip method to
increase productivity and also save on water as done elsewhere. Groundwater is the
most suitable source Ior drip method oI irrigation. It accounts as yet Ior about 50
oI the total irrigated area. II at least a halI oI this can be converted to drip method, it
will not only extend the area under irrigation but help increase productivity oI the
crops too as yield is generally more in irrigated area. Furthermore, it will overcome
problems resulting Irom over-exploitation oI groundwater, such as Iall in water table,
increase in the Iluoride content oI water pumped out Irom deep aquiIers and intrusion
oI sea water into Iertile lands which has been on alarming increase. About 58 million
hectares oI land is available in the Iorm oI Iallow land, cultivable waste, barren land,
etc. At least, one halI oI these can be brought under drip irrigation
(Narayanamoorthy, 1997). Since India is becoming a major player oI Ilowers,
medicinal crops, Iine herbs, Iruits and vegetables in the international market, it has a
huge potential Ior scaling up MIS adoption (Anonymous, 2004a).

11
AIter realizing the vast potential oI this untapped sector, the central government has
already decided to invest Rs. 61,500 crores (Table 1.2). The tenth plan envisaged to
cover 3 million hectare area under MI and the eleventh plan has provisions Ior
coverage oI 14 million hectare.

Table 1.2 Projected area and cost estimates for pressurised irrigation systems as
suggested by Task Force on MIS
Proposed area for adoption (million ha) Year
Drip Sprinkler Total
Estimated
Cost of
adoption (Rs.
crore)
2004-05 0.5 0.25 0.75 2625
2005-06 0.7 0.35 1.05 3675
2006-07 0.8 0.40 1.20 4200
X plan 2.0 1.00 3.00 10500
2007-08 1.0 0.60 1.60 5400
2008-09 1.5 0.70 2.20 7800
2009-10 2.0 0.80 2.80 10200
2010-11 2.5 0.90 3.40 12600
2011-12 3.0 1.00 4.00 15000
XI Plan 10.00 4.00 14.00 51000
Total 12.00 5.00 17.00 61500
Source: Khanna, 2004
1.2.3 Economics of Micro Irrigation in India- The Drip system
A study on organic cotton Iields in Nimar Valley in M.P. involving 10 Iarmers and 16
plots Iound that there are signiIicant beneIits to be gained by pre-ponement oI the
cropping calendar Ior cotton as it helps in increasing the net returns Irom cotton crop,
gives the opportunity to access and increase returns Irom the wheat crop, and drip
irrigation is the best way to do so as it enables summer irrigation with use oI
minimum amount oI water and electricity. In the summer months, the supply is
irregular and oIten in short supply. Drip helps in adequate irrigation despite irregular
supply as it requires smaller quantum oI electricity supply to irrigate even larger area
than Iurrow irrigation. The maximum beneIit that accrues to a Iarmer Irom the use oI
drip irrigation results Irom the opportunity to increase the area under summer sowing.
Most oI the Iarmers using drips were able to sustain plants till they stabilized and then
shiIted the drip to sow another part oI their Iields in the summer. This increased the
beneIits many Iolds. Drip irrigation does result in saving oI water iI the area and
number oI days in summer season are kept constant (Sakthivadivel and Bhamoriya,
2004).
12

Adoption oI MI technologies does lead to improved water use eIIiciency at the
individual Iarm level, unless the technologies are adopted on a large scale, the impact
would not be signiIicant at the basin or sub-basin level (Verma et al, 2004). It is clear
that saving oI water as a result oI micro-irrigation can result at a meso-level only iI a)
adopting Iarmers do not have land to increase irrigated area, and b) a large number oI
Iarmers turn adopters in the area concerned. The saved water is being diverted to
other uses to expand area under irrigated cultivation in summers in the Nimar
Valley. Thus, there is a need to take careIul look at the proposition oI using drip
irrigation to eIIect water saving at a basin or meso-level or how to achieve the scale
required Ior it. At the Iarm level, adopting drip irrigation means a number oI beneIits
more irrigation with same quantity oI water or lesser water Ior same number oI
plants as compared to conventional Iurrow irrigation. It also helps in better irrigation
with irregular and lesser power supply. There are signiIicant gains Irom the increased
germination rate that the drip oIIers to Iarmers (Sakthivadivel and Bhamoriya, 2004).

A study oI drip irrigation oI alIalIa crop in Banaskantha district oI north Gujarat, a
region where intensive use oI groundwater Ior irrigation had resulted in many
undesirable consequences and where alIalIa, a highly water intensive crop, is grown
extensively and accounts Ior nearly 13 oI the total water diverted Ior agriculture in
the region revealed that water saving Irom Family Drip System (FDS oI NetaIim,
India) could be as high as 43 . The yield rise was in the range oI 7.4 to 10.8 . The
overall increase in water productivity was in the range oI 17.5 and 94 . As
regards economic perIormance, the private gains Irom using the drip system (B/C
ratio ranging Irom 1.05 to 1.29) are just suIIicient to take care oI the added cost oI
installing it. Drip irrigation oI alIalIa crop is economically viable (B/C ratio ranging
Irom 1.18 to 1.83) Irom a macro perspective, iI we consider the cost oI producing
electricity used Ior groundwater pumping, which is scarce. Economic viability
improves (Irom 1.28 to 2.78) when one considers the price at which water is traded as
the value oI the resource. For water buyers, private gains Irom drip system would
exceed the cost oI the system, iI they mange the system properly. ThereIore,
subsidies to this drip irrigation Ior alIalIa cultivation would be rational Irom both
social and economic angles (Kumar et al, 2004).

13
In sugarcane, substantial water saving and productivity gains due to the drip method
oI irrigation has been reported. Single cane weight, girth, length, number oI inter-
nodes, and leaI length and breadth were also Iound to be higher with sugarcane
cultivated under drip method when compared with that cultivated under Ilood method.
Because oI less moisture stress under this method, the recovery rate oI sugarcane
cultivated was also Iound to be higher. Importantly, a large-scale adoption oI the drip
method in sugarcane could help to solve the problem oI water logging and secondary
salinisation which is growing in some regions (Narayanamoorthy, 2004). A study oI
drip system in Haryana Iound that the IRR Ior drip system were ranging between 14-
29 Ior diIIerent crops under diIIerent systems oI cropping, and BC ratio ranged
Irom 1:1.76 Ior grapes to 1:3.70 Ior citrus (kinnow) which were much higher than
those Ior surIace systems (Luhach et al, 2004).

Verma et al (2004) studied the investment cost oI Pepsee system in Maikaal region oI
MP and Iound that Ior cultivation oI cotton (44 Ieet spacing) in one acre oI land
using Pepsee
1
systems, the total initial investment was calculated to be US$ 92.73 (1
US$ INR 48). The initial investment Ior Pepsee systems is 41 less than the same
Ior micro-tubes (Table 1.3) and 78 less than the same Ior conventional drip systems.
Low Iinancial investment and water scarcity are major reasons Ior rapid adoption oI
Pepsee systems.

Table 1.3: Fixed and variable costs of Pepsi system
Heads Pepsee (US$) Micro-tubes (US$)
Fixed cost 72.92 154.69
Operations and
maintenance cost
a

3.33 2.50
Other variable costs 16.48 1.22
Total 92.73 158.41
Source: Verma et al, 2004
a: Amount may vary over years and across Iarmers.


1
Small candy manuIacturers use light density plastics, disposable in nature, to Iill ice candies, which
are sold as 'Pepsee in the local markets in Maikaal region oI Madhya Pradesh. This plastic roll is
today being used in place oI the drip tubes and is placed directly at the root zone oI the plants in that
region and it is know as Pepsee system. Pepsee systems are low cost substitutes Ior drip irrigation
systems made up oI low density polythene ranging Irom 65130 micrometers. It is oI non ISI
standards. In 2001, IDE India recognized the success oI this grassroots innovation and came up with its
own version oI the Pepsee, aptly named 'easy drip, and targeted largely at vegetable-growing Iarmers.
Pepsee systems are viewed as a 'stepping stone to adoption oI a higher degree oI sophistication and
higher cost technologies (Verma et al, 2004).
14
1.2.4 Economics of Sprinkler System
The sprinkler system was Iirst propagated in India during the 1950s but could not
become popular due to abundant availability oI water. The total area under sprinkler
irrigation is estimated to be 6.58 million hectares oI the total irrigated are (77.8
million hectares). A study oI drip and sprinkler systems in Haryana where 85000
hectares is irrigated with sprinkler system revealed that these systems lead to
signiIicant saving in water and the sprinkler system also reduces operational costs as
well as labour requirements. In Haryana, the average area under sprinkler irrigated
Iarms was 9.65 hectares and number oI irrigations applied 4.77 compared with
pumpset based surIace irrigation system where these averages were only 3.58 hectares
and 3.54 irrigations. The labour requirement Ior irrigation was also signiIicantly lower
in sprinkler system (34 hours/hac/irrigation compared with 153 hours). The average
cost oI sprinkler irrigation was Rs. 4890 per hectares and per irrigation cost Rs. 1026
compared with Rs.10,100 and Rs. 2853 respectively in surIace irrigation. This led to
higher per hectare income Ior sprinkler Iarmers as against surIace irrigation Iarmers.
Also, the sprinkler Iarmers were able to bring additional area under irrigation. The net
present value, IRR, pay back period and BC ratio were Iound to be 7970, 17 , 7
years and 1:1.97. Thus, sprinkler system was more water saving, less costly and more
eIIicient compared with surIace systems (Luhach et al, 2004) which was the Iinding
oI another study in Maharashtra as well which compared traditional and modern
methods oI irrigation and Iound that modern methods make less excessive use oI
water and promote optimum utilisation oI water and other inputs (Talathi and
Hiremath, 2004).

1.2.5 Status of Micro irrigation in India
The economic returns to Iarmers` investment in micro irrigation are reported to be
substantial and the government/s (central and state) in India have been trying to
promote the technology through subsidies. But, still the progress is tardy and the
micro irrigated area remains a small proportion oI the potential (Namara et al, 2004).
The area under micro irrigation in India is about 1.2 million hectares oI which drip
system accounts Ior 0.5 million hectares and sprinkler 0.7 million hectares. This is
against the potential oI 69 million hectares. However, the potential Ior both drip and
sprinklers is much higher than what has been achieved till now. The potential Ior Drip
is about 27 million hectares and Ior Sprinklers is about 35 million hectares. The area
15
under drip is conIined to mainly 12 states in India oI which the maximum
concentration is in the states oI Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu. The growth oI MIS coverage over a period oI 11 years Irom 1992-93 to
2002-03 is depicted in Iigure 1.1. Area irrigated under drip in India Vs world is
presented in table 1.4 (Chopra and Moshawir, 2004).

Table 1.4: Area irrigated under drip system in the World and in India (Ha)
Year World India
1970 56,000 ---
1988 10,55,000 1,000
1991 16,00,000 55,000
1999 28,00,000 2,54,000
2001 30,00,000 3,10,000
Source: Chopra and Moshawir, 2004

Figure 1.1: Coverage of Micro Irrigation in India

Year wise coverage of area under
Micro Irrigation in India
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
9
9
2
-
9
3
1
9
9
3
-
9
4
1
9
9
4
-
9
5
1
9
9
5
-
9
6
1
9
9
6
-
9
7
1
9
9
7
-
9
8
1
9
9
8
-
9
9
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
Year
'
0
0
0

H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s

Source: Chopra and Moshawir, 2004

There are seven states which have adopted sprinklers to a signiIicant extent. The
major ones are AP, TN, Maharashtra, and Karnataka (Fig. 1.2). However, there are
many states which have not taken up drip or sprinklers on a large scale. The major
ones here are the North Eastern States, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Chopra and
Moshawir, 2004). The crops covered under drip system oI irrigation are coconut,
16
banana, grapes, mango, citrus Iruits and pomegranate whereas sprinkler is more
widely used in oilseeds, pulses and plantation crops (FICCI, 2004). Drip irrigation
was introduced during the 1970s and has increased in terms oI area Irom 1500
hectares in1985 to 259500 hectares by 2001 (Luhach et al, 2004). India is the second
country aIter USA to implement drip irrigation. Though India started with MI much
later in the global scenario, today it is the second largest user oI MI technologies
(Jain, 2004b).

Fig: 1.2 Status of Drip Irrigation in India: March 2003 Vs March 2006

Source: http://www.aphorticulture.com/apmipdetails.htm downloaded on 29.06.2007

Some oI the reasons pointed out by some research scholars (reIer Verma et al, 2004)
Ior the sluggish growth oI drip irrigation technologies in India are: (1) high initial
capital investment; (2) lack oI credit Iacilities and (3) lack oI inIormation. The limited
growth oI micro-irrigation technologies in India so Iar can, to a large extent, be
explained by the apparent gap between what has been marketed and where the
demand lies. Over the years, government as well as non-government agencies have
been promoting micro-irrigation as a 'new concept in agriculture through a 'package
solution with the Iollowing salient Ieatures: (1) water saving; (2) good pay back
period and internal rate oI return; (3) customized and highly sophisticated technology;
(4) higher yields and better quality oI output; and (5) labour saving. The Iarmers, on
the other hand, have diIIerent priorities and concerns. They demand solutions and
17
technologies that would provide them with: (1) assured returns; (2) lower costs; (3)
simple technology; (4) generic applicability; and (5) higher and better yields with
Iewer pumping hours. Clearly, there is an urgent need to bridge this demandsupply
gap.

There is a total lack oI awareness building initiatives such as the word oI mouth/ or
advertisements/ hoardings / database / plays, etc. Lack oI clarity on disbursement oI
subsidy, Iinancial capability oI the Iarmers and credit Iacility Ior the Iarmer are
probably the major reason Ior the slow spread/adoption oI MI in India (Jain, 2004a;
Naqvi, 2004). Besides, there is a dire need Ior simple and maintenance Iree systems
and components (Jain, 2004a). Micro-irrigation technologies have tended to become
popular where between water and energy, water is scarcer. II the small Iarmers are to
be targeted, policy makers must understand that they would be hesitant in making
huge capital investments in new technologies unless they are very sure oI their results.
Even when they are convinced about the returns, they might not be in a position to
incur the huge capital costs owing to poor access to good quality credit options.
Unless the Iarmers Ieel totally comIortable and competent in handling the technology
intended Ior them, there is little chance that even 6070 subsidies would bring the
desirable results (Verma et al, 2004).

1.2.6 Subsidy for micro-irrigation
Jha (2005) argued that being a capital intensive MIS needs to be treated as an
inIrastructure Iacility because other consequential beneIits outweigh its own principal
advantage oI water saving. Having been done that the central and state governments
have to provide enough Iinancial support and subsidies till MIS get adopted on a
scale, Ior which market can take care oI, in leading it Iurther ahead. Since the cost oI
micro irrigation system is quite high, government is trying to promote its use by
providing subsidy and by making various water policies. The area under drip
irrigation system has increased Irom 14000 ha in 1992-93 to 450000 ha in the year
2002-03 (Fig. 1.3). The area under sprinkler system has also increased up to about
700000 ha in the year 2002-03 (TFMI, 2004). But, the total area under micro
irrigation system is still just about 1.9 oI total irrigated land.
18

Fig. 1.3: Area under drip irrigation system (Source: Sengupta et al, 2004)

It was in 1998 that the then chieI minister oI Maharashtra initiated the work oI drip
irrigation in the country by the means oI government support in the Iorm oI the Iirst
ever state subsidy scheme. This was Iurther promoted by the implementation oI the
centrally sponsored scheme Ior sprinkler and MI in the VII and VIII plans,
respectively. It was the late Deputy Prime Minister oI India, Mr. Devilal who
allocated Rs. 200 crores worth oI subsidies Ior drip irrigation in 1992. ThereaIter, a
task Iorce on MI had been constituted in 2003, by ministry oI Iinance under the
chairmanship oI Shri. N. Chandrababu Naidu to suggest strategies to expand coverage
oI area under MI in the country. Central government is giving 25 oI Iinancial
assistance Ior MI in all the states oI the country (Naqvi, 2004).

APMIP is one oI the biggest projects in the world to promote irrigation. It has a target
oI covering 2.5 Lakh hectares oI land under MI within a time Irame oI two years with
an investment oI Rs. 1200 crore (Anonymous, 2004b). As on 31 March 2006, the
project brought 1.66 lakh ha under MIS by investing Rs. 419.91 crores with the
subsidy assistance oI Rs 209.96 crore
(http://www.aphorticulture.com/apmipdetails.htm). Rajasthan Government propelled
the distribution oI almost 2 Lakh sprinkler sets till 2003-04 investing around Rs. 175
crore (Sharma and Kumar, 2004).


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Year
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

(
0
0
0

h
a
)
19
Upto 1999-2000, the Government oI India provided assistance Ior drip installation Ior
horticultural crops 90 oI the cost oI the system or Rs.25000 per ha, whichever is
less Ior small & marginal, SC/ST and women Iarmers and 70 oI the total cost or
Rs.25000 per ha, whichever is less Ior other category oI Iarmers. Assistance was also
provided Ior drip demonstration oI Rs.22, 500 or 75 oI the system cost per
hectare whichever is less. During the ninth Iive year plan, diIIerential subsidy was
provided beneIiting small, marginal, SC/ST and women Iarmers. The subsidy was
50 oI the cost to small, marginal, SC/ST and women Iarmers subject to a maximum
ceiling oI Rs. 50,000/- per ha. and 33 oI the cost subject to a maximum ceiling oI Rs.
10,000 per ha Ior other category Iarmers. During the Tenth Five Year Plan, the subsidy
was reduced to 25 Ior all categories oI Iarmers. The emerging scenario oI slashing
subsidies (Table 1.5) and the Iailure oI the government to pay back the companies has
resulted in increase in Iarmer prices oI the micro irrigation system and also the
Iormulation oI individual price decisions by the companies. These increasing prices
may lead to lesser adoption oI the micro irrigation system and irrigation companies
need to make extra eIIort to increase their sales. In this situation irrigation companies
marketing strategy would play vital role in their business (Sengupta et al, 2004).

Table 1.5: Subsidy Pattern for micro irrigation

Year

Percentage Subsidy


Area Restriction
1989-1993 25-33 2 Ha
1993-1995 33-50 2 Ha
1995-1997 50 2 Ha
1997-2000 70-90 No restriction
2000-2002 35-50 4 Ha
2002-2004 25 4 Ha
Source: Chopra and Moshawir, 2004

It was Ieared that the subsidy reduction would reduce the sales oI irrigation
companies. But on the contrary, subsidy reduction has not aIIected their business and
their sales have gone up. The declining water resources and government policy oI
Iixed timing Ior electricity in rural areas have motivated Iarmers to use water saving
techniques like drip system Ior irrigation purpose. The increasing level oI awareness
among Iarmers Ior water saving techniques has also increased the business oI
irrigation companies. In the higher subsidy regime, Iarmers were used to wait Ior
government announcement Ior subsidy hike to purchase micro irrigation system, but
20
now, since amount oI subsidy is very low, they don`t care about it and purchase
system whenever they realize its need. Companies also provide them cash discount
which compensates Ior subsidy reduction. BeIore the Tenth Iive year plan, subsidy
claim was the sole responsibility oI the companies; they had to go Ior large
documentation Iormalities beIore getting the money, the process was bit tedious and
companies were spending signiIicant time in this process but now government policy
oI providing beneIit oI subsidy directly to the Iarmers has made the work oI
companies easier (Sengupta et al, 2004).

Figure: 1.4 Schematic Representation of the Process of Availing Subsidy


Source: Chopra and Moshawir, 2004

1.2.7 Determinants of Adoption of Drip irrigation method
Phansalkar and Verma (2006) termed drip irrigation to be a silver bullet considering
its highly Iavourable income eIIect, low entry cost; Iavourable eIIects on Iield-level
water use eIIiciency; and signiIicant poverty impacts. According to their study, aIter
nearly two decades oI promotion oI conventional drip systems and about seven years
work oI International Development Enterprises, India (IDEI), drip systems have been
adopted by not more than 1.5 oI the total potential users. Some reasons Ior low
spread oI drip irrigation can be traced to the perception oI high investments needed
Ior the adoption oI drip system, prevalence oI row crops such as staples Ior which
drips are not optimal, Ilat tariII on electricity that reduces Iarmers incentives to
Application to
ADO/HDO
Eligibility
Certificate
Contact
Manufacturer
Dealer
Survey
Proforma
Invoice
Sanction
Cash/ Bank
Loan
Full Payment
to company
Installation Inspection Release of
Subsidy
Farmer
Account
21
economize on pump usage, insuIIicient concern about saving oI water and perceptions
that drip systems lead to inIlexibility in crop choices.

Micro irrigation is oIten associated with the capital intensive, commercial Iarms oI
more wealthy Iarmers and the systems used on large Iarms are oIten unaIIordable Ior
small Iarmers and are not available in sizes suitable Ior small plots (Namara et al,
2004). An important reason Ior lack oI use oI drip irrigation Ior conventional crops is
that the technology has been viewed worldwide as a tool Ior precision irrigation rather
than 'water saving irrigation. The demand Ior this technology in an area is primarily
driven by considerations oI the degree oI precision and quality to be maintained in
irrigating the crop, and thereIore is determined by the type oI crops that are dominant
in an area; whether 'high value or 'low value. In India, scale oI adoption oI micro
irrigation is remarkable in regions where Iarmers have taken to growing high value
crops. The past research Iocused heavily on high value Iruit and row crops and large
Iarmers. Little research based inIormation is available in the country on the technical
Ieasibility and economics oI drip irrigation Ior conventional crops, though availability
oI water has become an important limiting Iactor in crop production. More
importantly, very little research has really gone into innovating drip technology to
make it cost eIIective, versatile, and economically viable Ior the more common crops.
All these Iactors have posed constraints in scaling up adoption oI drip irrigation
technology (Kumar et al, 2004).

A study oI micro irrigation systems (drip) in Gujarat and Maharashtra Iound that the
major determinants oI the micro irrigation adoption are: level oI education oI the
household members, access to ground water and the technical characteristics oI the
well and the associated inIrastructure such as pumps, cropping pattern, the social
stratum oI the Iarm household and the signiIicance oI agriculture in the total household
economy. Surprisingly, Iarm size was not Iound to be a signiIicant predictor oI micro
irrigation adoption. This is so as micro irrigation systems are increasingly becoming
scale neutral due to Iarmers` own innovations in this Iield e.g. Pepsee systems in
Maikaal area in M.P. and the eIIorts oI development agencies like the IDE and other
NGOs to redesign or develop systems which are accessible to the majority oI the
irrigators (Namara et al, 2004). This is somewhat diIIerent Irom what was Iound in
study oI determinants oI adoption and use oI drip irrigation in the USA in the early
22
1990s where water saving, experience and exposure to the technology, Iarm size, and
type oI crop (ratoon or plant) were Iound to be signiIicant determinants oI adoption oI
drip irrigation technology (Shrestha and Gopalakrishnan, 1993). In M.P. as well, the
variation within the drip irrigating Iarmers with respect to water use in cotton crop
clearly indicated that there were perceptional barriers to drip irrigation as a water
saving medium Ior the Iarmers (Sakthivadivel and Bhamoriya, 2004).

Combine harvestors

Combine harvestor can reduce crop loss, reduce problem oI peak labour shortage by
combining the activities oI harvesting, threshing, winnowing, and collection oI grains
and chaII. The Iield capacity oI a combine is 0.7-1.0 acre crop harvesting per hour
depending on the moisture content oI the soil during harvesting (NABARD, 2005a).

There are more than 60 manuIacturers oI combines in Punjab with most oI them
located at Barnala in Barnala district, and Nabha and Bhadson in Patiala district. The
major ones include: Standard, Balkar, Panesar, KS Agro (Dashmesh), Preet, Sansar
and Hira. The later three are into selI propelled combines. Kartar Agro at Bhadson is
the oldest selI propelled combined maker. Standard started making tractor driven
combines in 1981. BeIore that, it was making selI propelled ones. The cost oI selI
propelled combine is Rs. 12 lakh and that oI the tractor driven Rs. 4-5 lakh. That`s
why, tractor driven combines are more popular now. But, there are hardly any studies
on combine harvestor industry and its use except reports by NABARD on the use oI
combine harvestors in Tamilnadu.

4. Need for the Study

Though tractor industry is well established and there have been studies oI tractor
purchase and use behaviour during the past, there has been no recent studies on the
growth, structure, and competition dynamics and the Iirm behaviour and strategies in
the light oI the changing nature oI the tractor market in terms oI its locational shiIt
and saturation in the traditional pockets oI it symbolized by the emergence oI second
hand tractor markets and entry oI many new home grown players in the market.

23
On the other hand, not much is known about the structure and organisation oI the
combine harvester and micro irrigation industry. At least, there is little documented
evidence on these industries in India. Also, many oI the combine harvester makers
have diversiIied into tractor manuIacturing and marketing more recently. There are
some oI the homegrown tractor producers in the country producing either both
tractors and combine harvesters or only tractors. They have carved a signiIicant niche
Ior themselves in the recent past. ThereIore, it is interesting and important to examine
this phenomenon oI indigenous growth and diversiIication in an increasingly
competitive market Ior tractors. Further, there are no studies on micro irrigation
equipment industry which is growing in importance due to changing cropping pattern
and need Ior and Iocus on water saving technologies.

5. Objectives of the Study

In the light oI the above, the study:
1. examines the nature oI growth, and market structure in the tractor,
thresher/reaper/combine harvester and micro irrigation equipment industries
2. explores the changing nature oI demand in these industries especially tractor
and harvesting industry
3. analyses the marketing and business strategies oI the various types oI players
in this market like bundling oI inputs, diversiIication, consolidation, etc. and
4. examines the tractor, combine harvester and micro irrigation equipment
market with Iocus on buying aspects and underutilization especially
Iunctioning oI the second hand tractor markets

6. Scope and Methodology

The study takes a case study approach and examines the industry as a chain oI actors
i.e. manuIacturers and marketers, dealers and user Iarmers in order to understand the
dynamics oI the market in each industry sector.

Three industries within the agricultural machinery sector tractor, combine harvestor
and micro irrigation have been studied with Iocus on major locations oI the industry
especially that oI the tractor and the combine harvester industry. The study begins
24
with secondary data based analysis and goes on to case studies oI Iirms in both the
industries with a view to understand their marketing and business strategies. It also
analyses dealer and Iarmer level data to understand distribution level issues and
strategies. Given the concentration oI combine harvesting industry in a Iew towns in
Punjab (Nabha and Bhadson in Patiala District) which accounts Ior 87 oI the total
units in India, and the emergence oI some oI these players as tractor manuIacturers
and marketers, besides the location oI more than halI a dozen tractor players in that
region (Punjab, Haryana, and HP) (International Tractors, Preet Tractors, Standard
Tractors, Indo Farm Tractors, Punjab Tractors, and the HMT), the case studies are
conducted in these areas and Iocus on players who are into both combine and tractor
business or were earlier into threshers business. Bhadson in Patiala is one oI the
natural modern small scale industry based high export potential horizontally
coordinated agricultural implements cluster which has high scope Ior technological up
gradation. Similarly, Moga district is horizontal natural cluster Ior wheat threshers
with low export potential and high scope Ior technology upgradation (Singh and Jain,
2007).

On the other hand, some oI the micro irrigation equipment Iirms, most oI whom are
based in western India, have been studied to understand their growth and business
strategies. Dealer level analysis is carried out to understand the distribution dynamics
in tractor and micro irrigation equipment sectors. There was no practice oI dealership
in combine harvestor industry. Farmer level analysis is carried out to understand the
purchase and use practices in all the three industries.











25
Table 1.6: A profile of units, dealers and farmers studied across industries
Industry
Sector
Location/s
(state/s)
Companies/Units
studied
Dealers
interviewed
Farmers
interviewed
Tractors Punjab and
Gujarat
Two new large
scale and two small
tractor mIrs.
36 23
Combine
harvestors
Punjab, Gujarat
and
Maharashtra
3 large and 16
samll-scale
- 42
MI equipment
(drip and
sprinkler)
Gujarat 4 14 34
All 26 50 99

7. Chapterisation

The next chapter examines the secondary data to understand the proIile and growth oI
the agricultural machinery industry Iollowed by chapter 3 which examines the new
players in the tractor industry specially home grown players who have moved into
tractors Irom other businesses like threshers, combines etc.. This is Iollowed by the
perspectives oI dealers oI tractors in chapter 4 and the tractor Iarmers` purchase and
use behaviour in chapter 5. Chapter 6 examines the combine manuIacturers` proIiles
and strategies especially Iocusing on small scale (un) organised sector players and
chapter 7 deals with the combine owners` perceptions and experiences oI using the
machine. Chapter 8 examines the proIile and strategies oI micro irrigation equipment
companies, Iollowed by analysis oI the industry structure and conduct at the dealer
and Iarmer level in chapters 9 and 10 respectively. The conclusions and
recommendation Irom the study are presented in chapter 11.






26
Chapter 2
Growth and Use of Agricultural Machinery in India

Introduction
Agricultural machinery and implements are an important Iactor in agricultural
production and productivity enhancement. There are direct as well as indirect eIIects
oI agricultural machinery and implements on productivity through better use oI other
inputs, more eIIicient and timely completion oI agricultural operations and increase in
cropping intensity (Venugopal, 2004). But, the adoption oI machines is the result oI
many Iactors at the Iarm level like size oI land holding, irrigation, labour, credit and
risk orientation and socio-economic proIile oI the Iarmer. Still, level oI mechanization
oI agriculture in India remains low (tables 2.1 and 2.1.1 to 2.1.4.). Except a Iew states
like Punjab, Haryana, U.P., Rajasthan and Tamilnadu, the area under Iive major crops
being tilled with tractors is low and, that too, is largely with hired tractors. Though it
is not necessary Ior each Iarmer to own a tractor, but hired use also shows that there is
scope Ior higher penetration oI tractors provided their viable use can be made
possible. This is also reIlected in the number oI tractors per 1000 hac oI operated area
(table 2.2).

Table 2.1: Level of mechanisation in Indian agriculture in 1996
Operation of cultivated area mechanized
Tillage 40.2
Tractor 15.6
Animal 24.7
Sowing with seed drill/seed-Iert drill 28.9
With tractor 8.3
With animal 20.6
Irrigation 37
Wheat threshing with thresher 47.8
Paddy threshing wth thresher 4.4
Harvesting with reaper 0.56
Harvesting with combine 0.37
Plant protection 34.2
Source: Venugopal, 2004.







27
Table 2.1.1: Farm power availability in India - total and source-wise in

Animate
Year Total Iarm power
(KW/ha)
Human Animal
Mechanical Electrical
1951-52 0.25 97.40 2.10 0.50 --
1961-62 0.31 94.90 3.70 1.40 --
1971-72 0.30 15.11 45.26 25.86 13.77
1981-82 0.47 10.92 27.23 44.10 17.70
1991-92 0.76 8.62 16.55 53.93 20.90
2001-02 1.23 6.49 9.89 62.36 21.26
2005-06* 1.50 5.77 8.02 65.47 20.74
*estimated
Source:Mehta, 2007

Table 2.1.2: Comparison of mechanization with other countries, 2001
Country Farm power
(KW/ha)
No. oI tractors
per 1,000 ha
No. oI combine harvesters
per 1,000 ha
India 1.23 9.43 0.026
Japan 8.75 456.24 234.42
UK 2.50 88.46 8.32
France 2.65 68.52 4.93
Italy 3.01 201.90 6.24
Germany 2.35 87.26 11.43
Pakistan - 14.92 0.074
Egypt - 31.32 0.8311
Source: Mehta, 2007

Table 2.1.3: Farm machinery availability in India
No. in lakh* Agricultural operations / Machine
1992 2003
Command in
percentage oI net area
sown
Tractors 12.22 23.61 25.0
Seed-drill
(i) Tractor drawn
(ii) Animal drawn

3.90
51.03

73.50
23.77

11.25
12.06
Threshers
(i) Wheat
(ii) Paddy
(iii) Multicrop

10.76
0.35
1.68

7.26
1.61
6.81

17.0
2.21
5.76
Plant protection equip. 29.56 58.31 48.39
Source: Mehta, 2007







28
Table 2.1.4: Growth of Agricultural machinery
Population
(Hundreds)
No. per 1,000 ha
net area sown
Equipment
1992 2003 1992 2003
Percentage
change
Horticultural tools
(power operated)

NR

12,681

-

8.9

Not calculated
Tractors 12,218 23,612 9.3 16.7 93.3
Power-tillers 3,297 2,799 2.5 2.0 (-) 15.1
Tractor-operated
disc-harrow

6,456

9,330

4.9

6.6

44.5
Tractor-operated
Cultivator

NR

17,715

-

12.5

Not calculated
Tractor-operated
Rotavator

NR

1,330

-

0.9

Not calculated
Potato digger 975 2,955 0.7 2.1 203.1
Straw reaper NR 26,605 - 18.8 Not calculated
Forage harvester NR 25,739 - 18.2 Not calculated
NR: not reported
Source:Mehta, 2007

Table 2.2: State-wise Percentage of Mechanically-Tilled AFMC, Use of Hired
Tractors and Power Tillers in India (1anuary, 1998-1une, 1998)
No. /10,000 Ha.of
Operated Area (1992)`
State of Tractor
Tilled AFMC
of Tractor
Tilled AFMC Tilled
with Hired Tractors`
Tractor Power Tiller
Himachal Pradesh 15 93 53 3
Jammu & Kashmir 36 89 27 6
Haryana 94 57 387 318
Punjab 97 34 1024 584
Uttar Pradesh 76 79 215 58
Gujarat 67 72 103 0
Rajasthan 89 79 91 10
Madhya Pradesh 36 63 73 12
Maharasthra 16 75 34 2
Andhra Pradesh 51 75 48 1
Karnataka 27 74 50 11
Kerala 15 73 3 15
Tamil Nadu 59 80 66 18
Assam 11 64 0 23
Bihar 48 75 59 25
Orissa 12 75 5 2
West Bengal 47 92 37 86
Arunachal Pradesh 9 44 3 0
Manipur 48 94 6 6
Tripura 37 76 9 18
India 54 72 109 41
Abbr.: AFMC : Area Under Five Major crops.
Source: Cultivation Practices in India, NSS Report No. 451, 54th Round (January, 1998-June, 1998).

Further, most oI the machines and implements were used more by small and marginal
Iarmers compared with that by medium or large Iarmers though it was used on hire.
29
But, total tractor use in terms oI hours per tractor was higher on large Iarms (607.63)
compared with that on medium (547.92) and small Iarms (503.9) (Venugopal, 2004).
In Punjab, which has the largest number oI tractors per thousand hectares, tractors
were being underutilized at a much larger scale in small Iarms (77) as against only
by 50 and 32 in medium and large Iarms respectively with the overall idle tractor
power being 43 Ior the region (Bathinda district). This indicates overcapitalisation
oI small Iarms in the state which has led to higher costs oI cultivation due to Iixed
cost component. Even electric motors and diesel pumps which number more than 11
lakh in the state (GoP, 2005), were being grossly underutilized on small Iarms (16
and 84 respectively) as against overuse oI the electric motors to the extent oI 11
on both medium and large Iarms and underutilization oI diesel pumps to the extent oI
67 and 38 respectively (Singh and Sharma, 2004). Also, the machinery costs on
small Iarms accounted Ior as much as 23 oI all operating costs in 1991-92 and were
no diIIerent Irom those on large Iarms (Jha, 2001).

Horse power of tractors and soil type mismatch

Surprisingly, Ior Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan U.P., Orissa and Bihar, the
recommended HP, given their soil conditions, was low but they all had most oI the
tractors being sold during the late 1990s in high HP category i.e. 31-40 HP or above
40 HP (Venugopal, 2004). Thus, 82 oI all tractors sold in India were in these two
HP categories. Where as medium and large Iarmers had higher on-Iarm use oI tractors
(44-47), small Iarmers had higher hired use oI their tractor (66) (Venugopal,
2004).

An agro-climatic study oI tractor owners and non-owners across states showed that in
Gujarat the average rate oI custom hiring with Disc and Cultivator was Rs. 942 per
hac and Rs. 507 per hac respectively. The average rates Ior combine, harvester and
thresher were Rs. 388, Rs. 316 and Rs. 270 per hac respectively in all the selected
districts IASRI, 2006). In Punjab, the average custom hiring with disc plough was
between Rs. 305 and Rs. 748 per hac. For combine harvestor, the custom hiring rate
was between Rs. 639-1107 per hac and Ior tractors with harvester/thresher, it was
between Rs. 254 and Rs.738 per hour (IASRI, 2006).

30
The northern region comprising oI Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh and Rajasthan
has more than 300 registered small scale agricultural machinery units and 9 tractor
manuIacturing units manuIacturing tractors with horse power ranging Irom 20-70.
The harvesting oI wheat and paddy is highly mechanised (upto 80 mechanically
harvested) in this region. In Punjab, cropping intensity was higher on non-tractor
owning households though landholding was higher Ior tractor owning households.
The number oI tractors, power tillers, electric motors, diesel engines and draught
animals per hac oI net sown area was Iound to be 130, 2, 189, 229, and 245
respectively (IASRI, 2006). Six states Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Rajasthan, M.P.,
and U.P. account Ior 78 oI the total tractor population in the country.

Besides tractors, power tillers are the other major machines introduced in India in
1962 as a substitute Ior tractors which very small Iarmers could not aIIord viably. By
1993-93, almost 9000 power tillers were being sold annually. The growth rate in the
production and sale oI power tillers has been higher than that oI tractors (table 2.3).
But, the production is only 25 oI the capacity (40,000) to produce tillers in India
despite the subsidy Ior power tillers under various government schemes.

Power tillers are manuIactured by two organised sector units and many small scale
units with total production reaching 15665 in 2003-04 (table 2.4) Irom just 329 in
1965-66. Most oI the power tillers are in the range oI 5-12 hp. But, higher hp tillers
are being imported. The growth rate oI power tillers has been higher than that oI the
tractors both in production as well as sales though initial base is very small (table 2.5).


Table 2.3: Type of Farm Machinery Industries in India (2000-01)
Equipment No. of Units
Agricultural tractors 14
Power tillers 7
Agricultural tools and implements 6980
Combines 15
Reapers 45
Tractors parts and accessories oI agricultural machinery 546
Earth moving machinery and parts 188
Diesel oil engines 200
Rice processing machinery 300
Dairy and Iood industries 500
Source: Agricultural Research Data Book, 2001.

31
Table 2.4: Production and Sale of Tractors and Power Tillers in India
(1982-83 to 2005-06)
Production (No.) Sale (No.)
Year
Tractors Power Tillers Tractors Power Tillers
1982-83 - - 63073 2221
1983-84 - - 74318 2901
1984-85 - - 80317 4222
1985-86 75550 3706 76886 3754
1986-87 80369 3325 80164 3209
1987-88 92092 3005 93157 3097
1988-89 109987 4798 110323 4678
1989-90 121624 5334 122098 5442
1990-91 139233 6228 139831 6316
1991-92 151759 7580 150582 7528
1992-93 147016 3648 144330 8642
1993-94 136971 9034 138879 9449
1994-95 164029 8334 164841 8376
1995-96 191311 10500 191329 10045
1996-97 221689 11210 220937 11000
1997-98 255327 12750 251198 12200
1998-99 261609 14480 262322 14488
1999-00 278556 16891 273181 16891
2000-01 255690 17315 254825 16018
2001-02 219620 14837 225280 13563
2002-03 168742 14438 173098 14613
2003-04 190687 15850 190336 15665
2004-05 - - 247693 17481
2005-06* - - 161155 1795
Note : * : Provisional till October, 2005.
Source : Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,
Govt. of India.






Fig 2.1: Number of Agricultural Tractors and Power Threshers in India
8.6 21 31 54
148.2
275.9
518.8
1020.8
1318
1713.6
1853
2038
2224
2478.5
205.8
484.1
1025
1363.8
1813.8
2222
2422
2822
3222
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1951 1956 1961 1966 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
i
n


'

0
0
0
Four Wheeler (Tractor) Power Thresher

Note: Data Ior 1992, 1995,1996,1997,1998 and 1999 are collected Irom ManuIacturers Association.
Source: Agricultural Research Data Book, 2001 & Past Volumes.
32

Table 2.5:Growth of tractors and powers tiller in India
Production (No.) Sale (No.) Particulars
Tractors Power Tillers Tractors Power Tillers
Growth period 1985-86 to 2003-04 1982-83 to 2004-05
No oI years 18 18 22 22
CAGR () 5.28 8.41 6.42 9.83
Source: Calculated based on the data oI Department oI Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry oI Agriculture, Govt. oI India & Past Issues.

State wise growth of agricultural implements and machinery

In 1960-61, India produced 880 tractors and imported 2997 tractors. In 2004-05, India
produced 2.5 lakh tractors and the population oI tractors had risen to 30 lakhs.
Similarly, the energised pump sets (both electric and diesel) stood at 160 lakh.
Overall, the investment in agricultural machinery which was Rs. 1000 crore in 1950-
51 stood at Rs. 50,000 crore in 2004-05 (IASRI, 2006). Consequently, the average
Iarm power availability went up Irom 0.25kW/hac in 1950-51 to 1.35kW/hac in 2001.
There was also a shiIt Irom animal power to machines with the Iormer accounting Ior
only 185 oI all Iarm power in 2001 compared with 97.4 in 1951. But, there are also
large regional variations with Punjab topping the list with 3.5kW/hac in 2001, but, it
was only 0.90 kW/hac in many states like Orissa and Rajasthan. Further there was
positive relationship between Iarm power availability and yield oI Iood grains over
1951 to 2001.

Data Ior Bihar, UP and MP were clubbed with recently divided states Jharkhand,
Uttranchal and Chattishgarh states, respectively Ior comparison between 1992 and
2003.
Data have been organized in descending order as per 2003 Iigures. Percentage oI
individual state in India is calculated Ior the respective year.

Growth formula ((A-B)/B))`100
Where,
Alast year value
B-Iirst year value


33
Table 2.6: Major State-wise Sale of Tractors in India (1996-1997 to 2000-2001)
State 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 CAGR ()
Andhra Pradesh 14291 11169 10052 16911 17958 5.88
Assam 333 600 450 519 517 11.63
Bihar 7755 10223 13120 13230 18031 23.48
Gujarat 19139 21511 23238 17747 12365 -10.35
Haryana 21332 22711 22361 21100 17978 -4.19
Himachal Pradesh 271 457 499 697 514 17.35
Jammu and Kashmir 427 502 704 662 512 4.64
Karnataka 12000 10174 6822 8245 11801 -0.42
Kerala 919 537 539 778 641 -8.61
Madhya Pradesh 22450 32248 34686 28815 23099 0.72
Maharashtra 17602 15053 16522 18742 16733 -1.26
Orissa 2279 2668 2012 2524 5031 21.89
Punjab 26160 30862 30550 27679 24397 -1.73
Rajasthan 21113 25148 24589 26664 15447 -7.51
Tamil Nadu 11528 10396 7442 9554 10247 -2.90
Uttar Pradesh 38766 50435 60342 69665 68354 15.23
West Bengal 1940 2283 3188 3397 3539 16.22
Export and Others 4464 3668 5135 6252 7661 14.46
Total 222769 250645 262251 273181 254825 3.42
Source: Central Water Commission
There was an overall increase in number oI tractors in India across all states during
the decade oI 1990s with very sharp growth in Orissa, MP and Bihar which was above
the national increase oI 107. On the other hand, share oI Punjab and Haryana came
down during this period (table 2.7). This is despite the Iact that the price oI tractor,
especially higher end HP ones is increasing signiIicantly, jumping Irom a highest oI
Rs. 2.3 lakh to a highest oI Rs. 3.4 lakh within two years (table 2.8).
Table 2.7: Growth in No. of Tractors in 2003 over 1992.
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 3466 28.37 7249 28.62 109.15
Rajasthan 1458 11.93 3346 13.21 129.49
Punjab 2130 17.43 3050 12.04 43.19
Madhya Pradesh 901 7.37 2846 11.24 215.87
Haryana 1562 12.78 2054 8.11 31.50
Gujarat 662 5.42 1560 6.16 135.65
Maharashtra 463 3.79 1102 4.35 138.01
Andhra Pradesh 569 4.66 1028 4.06 80.67
Bihar 140 1.15 1025 4.05 632.14
Karnataka 397 3.25 799 3.15 101.26
Tamil Nadu 295 2.41 670 2.65 127.12
West Bengal 65 0.53 184 0.73 183.08
Orissa 23 0.19 169 0.67 634.78
Other states 87 0.71 246 0.97 182.76
India 12218 100.00 25328 100.00 107.30

34
Table 2.8: Model-wise Number and Approximate Cost of Manufacturing
Tractors in India (1999-2000 to 2001-2002)
2001-2002 2000-2001 1999-2000 Model Horse
Power No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost
2522 25 1067 1410 2513
3022 30 146 533 1213
3522 35 5660 7328 8253
4511 45 213 930 1410
4922 49 1216 292 -
5911 58 1450 2901 2946
7511 75 48
Approx.1.65
to 3.40 (Rs. in
Lakh)
65
Approx.1.55
to 3.10 (Rs. in
Lakh)
-
Approx.1.50
to 2.30 (Rs. in
Lakh)
Total 9800 13459 16335
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.3787, dated: 08.08.2002.


Further, social category wise, it was mostly landed and upper castes and OBCs which
own tractors with SC and ST Iarming hhs possessing only one tractor per 100 hhs
(table 2.9). In terms oI land holding, it is mostly the medium, large and small holders
who owed tractors (table 2.10). But, here are wide variations across state e.g. Punjab
compared with other two study states had tractor ownership even among sub-marginal
and marginal landholders (table 2.11). Table 2.12 shows state-wise variations in
tractor ownership ranging Irom 18 in Punjab to almost nil in Orissa and Kerala.

Table 2.9: Farmer category-wise tractor density in India
Farmer Category No. of tractors per 100 hhs
SC 1
ST 1
OBC 3
Others 5
India 3
Source: NSSO report no. 497.







35
Table 2.10: Tractor density according to size of holding
Source: NSS Report No. 497. 2003.

Table 2.11: state wise and farmer holding wise tractor density in India
(tractors/1000 farm hhs)
Farmer land
holding
category
(hacs)
Punjab Gujarat Maharashtra India
0.01 0 7 0 2
0.01-0.4 2 0 0 2
0.41-1.00 105 8 4 11
1.01-2.00 132 32 7 25
2.01-4.00 471 64 13 75
4.01-10.00 705 101 52 189
~10.00 1178 357 184 375
All classes 179 31 13 29
Source: NSSO report No. 497







Land holding (hacs.) No. of tractors per 100 hhs
0.01 0
0.01-0.4 0
0.41-1.00 1
1.01-2.00 3
2.01-4.00 8
4.01-10.00 18
~10.00 38
All classes 3
36
Table 2.12: State wise tractor density in India
State No. of tractors per 100 farm hhs
AP 1.4
Assam 1.3
Bihar 1.6
Chhatisgarh 1.1
Gujarat 3.1
Haryana 10.9
J&K 2.8
Jharkhand 0.7
Karnataka 1.4
Kerala 0.2
MP 4.0
Maharashtra 1.3
Orissa 0.2
Punjab 17.9
Rajasthan 5.6
Tamilnadu 1.3
UP 4.5
WB 0.6
India 2.9
Source: NSSO report no. 497.
Second hand markets for tractors

There are daily, weekly, and Iortnightly markets Ior the sale and purchase oI second
hand as well as new tractors in various market towns oI Punjab where thousands oI
Iarmers participate and sell or buy tractors (primary survey). In a state which today
has more than 4.6 lakh tractors accounting Ior / oI the total population oI tractors in
the country with just 2.5 oI cultivated area, this phenomenon is both encouraging as
well as disturbing. With only about 11.17 lakh operational holdings in the state, it
means that every third holding in the state is equipped with a tractor. In some villages,
there is a tractor Ior every Iive acres oI land. Added to this is the Iact that more than
70 oI the Iarms are below 10 acres each (GoP, 2005). Moga and Barnala (both
district towns) are the largest markets in terms oI number oI Iarmers visiting and the
number oI tractors brought Ior sale with Talwandi Sabo (in Bathinda district)
emerging as the third largest.

There are more than a dozen tractor markets mainly in the cotton belt oI the state,
which Iacilitate buyers and sellers oI second hand tractors in quick transactions. There
are diIIerent reasons Ior the sale oI old tractors which relate to the larger agricultural
37
economy oI the state. The non-viability oI the tractors due to the small size oI the
holdings, domestic Iinancial crisis, repayment oI bank or other loans, purchase oI
land, change oI model/brand/horse power oI the tractor, lack oI business Ior tractors
due to their over population and competition, sale and purchase oI tractors as a
business proposition, and change oI occupation are the major reasons Ior sale oI
tractors in these markets (Singh and Kolar, 1998). The buyers are satisIied with the
operations oI these markets as they Iind a ready market and can liquidate the tractors
and other equipment in a short time to meet the exigencies. However, only a small
proportion oI those who sold tractors, bought another one Irom the tractor market
(primary survey).

The operations oI these markets are in the hands oI a number oI inIormal groups
known as 'Mandis in each market. They are nothing but collectivities oI a Iew
individuals (5-15) who operate as commission agents inside as well as outside the
market. These groups generally lease in land Ior the market, outside the town on an
annual basis and share this cost among them. This is the major cost. Other costs are
working costs Ior Iacilities like tents, chairs, etc. About a Iew hundred tractors in a
small market and a Iew thousand tractors in bigger markets are brought every time
(weekly or Iortnightly) a market is held, and a Iew (20-50) are sold every such time.
The tractor model and price are displayed on the tractor to Iacilitate buyer-seller
interaction. The commission agents also provide other Iacilities like space Ior parking
the tractors, and chairs and tents Ior the Iarmers. On every transaction, the agents
charge Rs. 300-500 up to a transaction oI Rs. one lakh and Rs. 600- 1,000 on a
transaction oI above Rs. one lakh each Irom the buyer as well as the seller. The
payments are made either on the spot or within a week aIter paying security. The
commission agents are responsible Ior ensuring the payments (primary survey, table
2.13).

Besides the Iacilitation oI business among Iarmers at one place which lowers search
and transaction costs, these markets also generate employment Ior those who cater to
the needs oI the people assembled in the market. Further, since these markets supply
second hand tractors, small and medium Iarmers are able to mobilise money to buy
these tractors which are low cost and easily available besides being relevant Ior these
classes oI Iarmers. Recently, even the tractor sales agencies have realised the value oI
38
these markets and have started displaying their new models oI tractors in these
markets so that Iarmers are made aware oI their Ieatures and the new product is
publicised among the potential buyers.

These markets are totally un-regulated by any government agency, but they Iunction
Iairly eIIiciently so Iar as Iarmers are concerned. Only in one oI the markets, the
District Collector has allowed the union oI these Mandis to issue licenses (identity
cards as agents Ior tractor sales and purchase) to the members oI the mandis. Also, the
buyers and sellers are made to pay a red cross Iee oI Rs. 50 per transaction each
(primary survey).



































39
Table 2.13: Profile of Second-hand Tractor Markets in Punjab
Name of market
Parameter
Talwandi
(Bathinda)

1hunir (Mansa)

Mour (Mansa)

Frequency oI Market Weekly Weekly Weekly
Day oI market

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

No. oI Iacilitators 60

7

12

Major buyers

Farmer, Scrapper, Tractor
agent

Iarmer and tractor agent

Iarmer nad tractor agent

No. oI tractors in market
Ior sale
20 -30

20- 40

15 - 20

StaII at each Iacilitation
centre

6 -7

6 - 7

5 - 6

Major brand Ior resale

Eicher, Farmtrack

Eicher (90)

Eicher (90)

Place oI origin oI second
hand tractors
Punjab, Haryana,
Rajsathan

Malwa region only

Malwa region only

Rent oI plot used as
market place (annual)

Rs. 30,000 to 60,000

- -
No. oI tractors sold per
Iacilitator

6 -7

3 -4

1- 3

Share oI second hand
tractors in market

79

99

100

Facilitators` cost per
mandi day

Rs. 800 to 1000

Rs. 800 to 1000

Rs. 800 to 1000

Facilitator`s Commission

1 oI sale price

Rs. 300 each Irom both
the parties

depending on competition

Margin Ior each
Iacilitator (annual)

Rs. 60000 to 100000

no response

no response

Regulation by a
committee

yes

no

no

other Iees

Rs. 100/tractor given to
Red Cross
Rs. 100/tractor given to
Red Cross

Rs. 100/tractor given to
Red Cross
other businesses oI
Iacilitators

agriculture, labour

agriculture, labour

agriculture, labour

Source: Primary survey

On the other hand, power tillers lost during the decade across states with exception
some eastern and western states. There was high growth in power tillers in Assam,
40
West Bengal, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka over the decade though total
number oI power tillers in India came down by 15 and some states like Punjab and
Haryana where tractors are a routine agricultural machine, and even MP and Bihar
witnessed a decline in number oI power tillers (table 2.14).
Table 2.14: Growth in Numbers of Power Tillers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh - - 631 22.59
Punjab 1460 44.28 353 12.64 -75.82
Karnataka 174 5.28 270 9.67 55.17
Haryana 508 15.41 262 9.38 -48.43
Rajasthan 128 3.88 184 6.59 43.75
West Bengal 88 2.67 179 6.41 103.41
Assam 7 0.21 132 4.73 1785.71
Madhya Pradesh 301 9.13 131 4.69 -56.48
Gujarat 33 1.00 108 3.87 227.27
Tamil Nadu 123 3.73 102 3.65 -17.07
Maharashtra 33 1.00 100 3.58 203.03
Andhra Pradesh 105 3.18 98 3.51 -6.67
Bihar 280 8.49 97 3.47 -65.36
Others 57 1.73 146 5.23 156.14
India 3297 100.00 2793 100.00 -15.29

Among the implements, UP, MP and Rajasthan witnessed major increases in MB
plough which were higher than the all India increase oI 50. Similar was the trend in
disc harrow with Bihar being the state with maximum increase over the period
Iollowed by above said states and Karnataka (tables 2.15 and 2.16). Seed drill was
growing much Iaster everywhere with large increases in TN, Karnataka and AP and
MP and the overall number in India going up by 160 during the decade. On the
other hand, planters did not show very spectacular increase with only AP taking the
lead and many states registering a decline in their numbers (tables 2.17 and 2.18).

Levellers picked up in Punjab, Assam, TN and Orissa with the All India level increase
oI 48 over the decade. The growth in potato diggers was more clear cut and in line
with the changing trend towards high value crops wherein the implement registered a
200 increase with states oI Orissa, Bihar, AP, MP and WB registering large
increases in their numbers and Punjab one oI the leading states in potato production
losing its share and in absolute numbers (tables 2.19-2.20). The trailers grew in line
with tractors as it is an essential implement Ior tractor most I the time (table 2.21).
41

Table 2.15: Growth in Mould Board Plough in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 259 5.19 1988 26.56 667.57
Rajasthan 732 14.67 1882 25.14 157.10
Maharashtra 732 14.67 845 11.29 15.44
Madhya Pradesh 173 3.47 570 7.61 229.48
Karnataka 358 7.18 551 7.36 53.91
Punjab 1590 31.87 342 4.57 -78.49
Andhra Pradesh 374 7.50 305 4.07 -18.45
Haryana 339 6.79 223 2.98 -34.22
Gujarat - - 208 2.78
Bihar - - 174 2.32
West Bengal 108 2.16 149 1.99 37.96
Tamil Nadu 87 1.74 143 1.91 64.37
Assam 124 2.49 11 0.15 -91.13
Other states 113 2.26 95 1.27 -15.93
India 4989 100.00 7486 100.00 50.05

Table 2.16: Growth in Number of Disc Harrow in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 1634 25.31 3032 32.49 85.56
Punjab 1470 22.77 1647 17.65 12.04
Haryana 1272 19.70 1584 16.98 24.53
Rajasthan 632 9.79 1070 11.47 69.30
Karnataka 129 2.00 409 4.38 217.05
Maharashtra 580 8.98 362 3.88 -37.59
Madhya Pradesh 101 1.56 310 3.32 206.93
Gujarat 221 3.42 229 2.45 3.62
Andhra Pradesh 209 3.24 209 2.24 0.00
Tamil Nadu 80 1.24 202 2.16 152.50
Bihar 10 0.15 120 1.29 1100.00
Other states 118 1.83 157 1.68 33.05
India 6456 100.00 9331 100.00 44.53













42
Table 2.17: Growth in number of Seed cum Fertilizer Drill in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Punjab 1030 26.44 2164 21.40 110.10
Rajasthan 717 18.40 2093 20.70 191.91
Madhya Pradesh 421 10.81 1735 17.16 312.11
Uttar Pradesh 538 13.81 1057 10.45 96.47
Haryana 766 19.66 983 9.72 28.33
Gujarat 304 7.80 844 8.35 177.63
Maharashtra - - 402 3.98
Karnataka 36 0.92 268 2.65 644.44
Andhra Pradesh 48 1.23 244 2.41 408.33
Tamil Nadu 3 0.08 166 1.64 5433.33
Other states 33 0.85 155 1.53 369.70
India 3896 100.00 10111 100.00 159.52

Table 2.18: Growth in Number of Planters in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Maharashtra - - 249 21.82
Uttar Pradesh 85 8.84 316 27.70 271.76
Andhra Pradesh 10 1.04 147 12.88 1370.00
Punjab 570 59.25 102 8.94 -82.11
Gujarat 43 4.47 74 6.49 72.09
Karnataka 73 7.59 64 5.61 -12.33
Haryana 91 9.46 34 2.98 -62.64
Rajasthan 48 4.99 29 2.54 -39.58
Other states 42 4.37 126 11.04 200.00
India 962 100.00 1141 100.00 18.61
Table 2.19: Growth in Number of Levelers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Punjab 870 14.75 2373 27.05 172.76
Uttar Pradesh 2433 41.24 2459 28.03 1.07
Orissa 323 5.48 628 7.16 94.43
Gujarat 261 4.42 598 6.82 129.12
Rajasthan 376 6.37 537 6.12 42.82
Haryana 765 12.97 504 5.74 -34.12
Maharashtra - - 341 3.89
Karnataka 188 3.19 328 3.74 74.47
Assam 30 0.51 182 2.07 506.67
Andhra Pradesh 156 2.64 162 1.85 3.85
Bihar - - 199 2.27
Tamil Nadu 72 1.22 130 1.48 80.56
Madhya Pradesh 188 3.19 156 1.78 -17.02
West Bengal 137 2.32 39 0.44 -71.53
Other states 100 1.70 138 1.57 38.00
India 5899 100.00 8774 100 48.74



43
Table 2.20: Growth in Number of Potato diggers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 420 43.08 903 30.52 115.00
Madhya Pradesh 9 0.92 682 23.05 7477.78
Bihar 10 1.03 327 11.05 3170.00
Andhra Pradesh 10 1.03 309 10.44 2990.00
Orissa 1 0.10 203 6.86 20200.00
West Bengal 65 6.67 183 6.18 181.54
Punjab 120 12.31 57 1.93 -52.50
Other states 340 34.87 295 9.97 -13.24
India 975 100.00 2959 100.00 203.49

On the harvest side, combine harvesters are still restricted to a Iew traditional holders
oI these machines like Punjab, Haryana and UP and some new states like AP, MP and
Bihar and Orissa (table 2.22). Overall, they grew 5 with large increases in non-
traditional states oI AP, J&K, Orissa and MP besides Haryana. Surprisingly, selI
propelled grew more than tractor operated combine harvesters everywhere. But,
threshers grew signiIicantly over the decade with increase oI 300 in paddy and
multi-crop categories, and wheat threshers declined in importance (table 2.23). Major
gains were seen in Rajasthan, UP, MP and WB. In Iact, UP accounted Ior 50 oI
multi-crop threshers Iollowed by MP with 20. Maize crop which is emerging as an
alternative to many crops reIlected its growth through the increase in the number oI
maize shellers by 90 with major gain in MP, Karnataka and Rajasthan (table 2.24).
Expectedly, sugarcane crushers declined in absolute terms over the decade (table
2.25). Reapers grew dramatically and witnessed more than 3000 increase with
major increases in MP. Bihar and Rajasthan (table 2.26). One explanation could be
the low base oI this equipment to begin with in 1992 and the other a gross under-
reporting oI the same in 1992.













44
Table 2.21: Growth in Number of Trailers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 925 19.59 2786 25.08 201.19
Punjab - - 2286 20.58
Gujarat 482 10.21 1178 10.60 144.40
Rajasthan 953 20.18 987 8.88 3.57
Maharashtra - - 819 7.37
Haryana 818 17.32 599 5.39 -26.77
Madhya Pradesh 726 15.37 564 5.08 -22.31
Orissa 5 0.11 558 5.02 11060.00
Bihar - - 391 3.52
Karnataka 114 2.41 390 3.51 242.11
Andhra Pradesh 437 9.25 224 2.02 -48.74
Tamil Nadu 198 4.19 120 1.08 -39.39
West Bengal 32 0.68 102 0.92 218.75
Other states 32 0.68 106 0.95 231.25
India 4722 100.00 11110 100.00 135.28

Tables 2.27, 2.28 and 2.29 show the state wise shares in various animal operated
machines and implements as oI 2003. Tractor operated sprayers were largely used in
Punjab, AP, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Bihar though Haryana and UP
also had some oI them (table 2.29). But, overall there were only 1717 such
implements in India. Drip was more common in Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra Tamil
Nadu Karnataka and Kerala and sprinklers in Rajasthan, AP, MP,Karnataka,
Maharashtra Tamilnadu, Haryana and Kerala (table 2.30). The number oI diesel
pumpsets somewhat stagnated during the 1990s compared with the 1970s and the
1980s. But, electric pumpsets grew sharply during the 1990s to account Ior almost
2/3
rd
oI all pumpsets Irom only about halI oI the total during the 1980s and earlier
(Iig. 2.2).

4
5

T
a
b
l
e

2
.
2
2
:

G
r
o
w
t
h

i
n

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
b
i
n
e

H
a
r
v
e
s
t
e
r
s

i
n

2
0
0
3

o
v
e
r

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
2

2
0
0
3

G
r
o
w
t
h

o
v
e
r

1
9
9
2

T
O

S
P

T
o
t
a
l

T
O

S
P

T
o
t
a
l

T
O

S
P

T
o
t
a
l

S
t
a
t
e
s
/
U
T
s

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0


H
a
r
y
a
n
a

5
8

1
.
5
1

2
5

1
4
.
2
9

8
3

2
.
0
7

4
7

4
.
0
9

2
3
3
6

7
5
.
7
0

2
3
8
3

5
6
.
2
7

-
1
8
.
9
7

9
2
4
4
.
0
0

2
7
7
1
.
0
8

U
t
t
a
r

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

-

-

-

-

-

-

3
0
5

2
6
.
5
4

4
9

1
.
5
9

3
5
4

8
.
3
6




A
n
d
h
r
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

1
9

0
.
4
9

3

1
.
7
1

2
2

0
.
5
5

6
0

5
.
2
2

2
2
9

7
.
4
2

2
8
9

6
.
8
2

2
1
5
.
7
9

7
5
3
3
.
3
3

1
2
1
3
.
6
4

J
a
m
m
u

&

K
a
s
h
m
i
r

1

0
.
0
3

3

1
.
7
1

4

0
.
1
0

9
3

8
.
0
9

1
0
8

3
.
5
0

2
0
1

4
.
7
5

9
2
0
0
.
0
0

3
5
0
0
.
0
0

4
9
2
5
.
0
0

M
a
d
h
y
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

1
2

0
.
3
1

3

1
.
7
1

1
5

0
.
3
7

1
4
3

1
2
.
4
5

5
7

1
.
8
5

2
0
0

4
.
7
2

1
0
9
1
.
6
7

1
8
0
0
.
0
0

1
2
3
3
.
3
3

B
i
h
a
r

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
6
2

1
4
.
1
0

3
7

1
.
2
0

1
9
9

4
.
7
0




O
r
i
s
s
a

4

0
.
1
0

1

0
.
5
7

5

0
.
1
2

1
3
2

1
1
.
4
9

4
6

1
.
4
9

1
7
8

4
.
2
0

3
2
0
0
.
0
0

4
5
0
0
.
0
0

3
4
6
0
.
0
0

P
u
n
j
a
b

3
0

0
.
7
8

1
0

5
.
7
1

4
0

1
.
0
0

5
6

4
.
8
7

6
8

2
.
2
0

1
2
4

2
.
9
3

8
6
.
6
7

5
8
0
.
0
0

2
1
0
.
0
0

N
a
g
a
l
a
n
d

3
6
4
0

9
4
.
8
2

-

-

3
6
4
0

9
0
.
6
8

-

-

-

-

-

-




T
r
i
p
u
r
a

-

-

1
1
6

6
6
.
2
9

1
1
6

2
.
8
9

-

-

-

-

-

-




O
t
h
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
s

7
5

1
.
9
5

1
4

8
.
0
0

8
9

2
.
2
2

1
5
1

1
3
.
1
4

1
5
6

5
.
0
6

3
0
7

7
.
2
5

1
0
1
.
3
3

1
0
1
4
.
2
9

2
4
4
.
9
4

I
n
d
i
a

3
8
3
9

1
0
0
.
0
0

1
7
5

1
0
0
.
0
0

4
0
1
4

1
0
0
.
0
0

1
1
4
9

1
0
0
.
0
0

3
0
8
6

1
0
0
.
0
0

4
2
3
5

1
0
0
.
0
0

-
7
0
.
0
7

1
6
6
3
.
4
3

5
.
5
1

N
o
t
e
:

T
O
-
T
r
a
c
t
o
r

o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
,

S
P
-
S
e
l
I

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
d



4
6

T
a
b
l
e

2
.
2
3
:

G
r
o
w
t
h

i
n

t
h
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

T
h
r
e
s
h
e
r
s

i
n

2
0
0
3

o
v
e
r

1
9
9
2


1
9
9
2

2
0
0
3

G
r
o
w
t
h

o
v
e
r

1
9
9
2

W
h
e
a
t

P
a
d
d
y

M
u
l
t
i
-
c
r
o
p
s

W
h
e
a
t

P
a
d
d
y

M
u
l
t
i
-

W
h
e
a
t

P
a
d
d
y

M
u
l
t
i
-
c
r
o
p
s

S
t
a
t
e
s
/
U
T
s

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0


U
t
t
a
r

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

7
9
5
1

7
3
.
9
1

1
3
9

3
9
.
2
7

1
0
0

5
.
9
5

2
4
9
7

3
4
.
3
9

1
9
6

1
2
.
1
5

3
7
9
0

5
5
.
6
5

-
6
8
.
6
0

4
1
.
0
1

3
6
9
0
.
0
0

B
i
h
a
r

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
1
1
7

1
5
.
3
9

4
3
0

2
6
.
6
6

1
4
8

2
.
1
7




M
a
d
h
y
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

6
8
5

6
.
3
7

2
6

7
.
3
4

4
5
7

2
7
.
1
7

1
0
8
3

1
4
.
9
2

3
9

2
.
4
2

1
3
5
9

1
9
.
9
6

5
8
.
1
0

5
0
.
0
0

1
9
7
.
3
7

R
a
j
a
s
t
h
a
n

3
8
8

3
.
6
1

2
6

7
.
3
4

2
2

1
.
3
1

8
2
7

1
1
.
3
9

1
1
3

7
.
0
1

3
5
0

5
.
1
4

1
1
3
.
1
4

3
3
4
.
6
2

1
4
9
0
.
9
1

H
a
r
y
a
n
a

1
3
9
9

1
3
.
0
1

3
4

9
.
6
0

8
2

4
.
8
8

7
0
0

9
.
6
4

2
8

1
.
7
4

1
2
7

1
.
8
6

-
4
9
.
9
6

-
1
7
.
6
5

5
4
.
8
8

P
u
n
j
a
b

-

-

-

-

-

-

3
4
4

4
.
7
4

2
0

1
.
2
4

6
4

0
.
9
4




H
i
m
a
c
h
a
l

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

1
2
7

1
.
1
8

1
1

3
.
1
1

1
0

0
.
5
9

1
9
4

2
.
6
7

1
2

0
.
7
4

5

0
.
0
7

5
2
.
7
6

9
.
0
9

-
5
0
.
0
0

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

1
3
0

1
.
2
1

8

2
.
2
6

5
1
2

3
0
.
4
4

1
8
5

2
.
5
5

3
1

1
.
9
2

4
4
6

6
.
5
5

4
2
.
3
1

2
8
7
.
5
0

-
1
2
.
8
9

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

-

-

-

-

4
7
0

2
7
.
9
4

1
7
1

2
.
3
6

4
2

2
.
6
0

4
0
5

5
.
9
5



-
1
3
.
8
3

W
e
s
t

B
e
n
g
a
l

4
7

0
.
4
4

5
4

1
5
.
2
5

2

0
.
1
2

7
6

1
.
0
5

1
1
4

7
.
0
7

8

0
.
1
2

6
1
.
7
0

1
1
1
.
1
1

3
0
0
.
0
0

N
a
g
a
l
a
n
d

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4
6
8

2
9
.
0
1

-

-




O
t
h
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
s

3
0

0
.
2
8

5
6

1
5
.
8
2

2
7

1
.
6
1

6
6

0
.
9
1

1
2
0

7
.
4
4

1
0
8

1
.
5
9

1
2
0
.
0
0

1
1
4
.
2
9

3
0
0
.
0
0

I
n
d
i
a

1
0
7
5
7

1
0
0
.
0
0

3
5
4

1
0
0
.
0
0

1
6
8
2

1
0
0
.
0
0

7
2
6
0

1
0
0
.
0
0

1
6
1
3

1
0
0
.
0
0

6
8
1
0

1
0
0
.
0
0

-
3
2
.
5
1

3
5
5
.
6
5

3
0
4
.
8
8

.
47
Table 2.24: Growth in Number of Maize Shellers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
In 00 in 00
Madhya Pradesh 17 2.73 350 29.49 1958.82
Uttar Pradesh 192 30.87 189 15.92 -1.56
Bihar 180 28.94 109 9.18 -39.44
Orissa
- -
97 8.17
Himachal Pradesh 35 5.63 85 7.16 142.86
Rajasthan 17 2.73 78 6.57 358.82
Andhra Pradesh 35 5.63 76 6.40 117.14
Gujarat 22 3.54 65 5.48 195.45
Karnataka 8 1.29 60 5.05 650.00
Punjab 50 8.04 29 2.44 -42.00
Haryana 64 10.29 10 0.84 -84.38
Other states 2 0.32 39 3.29 1850.00
India 622 100.00 1187 100.00 90.84

Table 2.25: Growth in the Number of Sugarcane Crushers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Uttar Pradesh 695 31.25 741 39.06 6.62
Madhya Pradesh 64 2.88 620 32.68 868.75
Andhra Pradesh 151 6.79 147 7.75 -2.65
Bihar
- -
107 5.64
Orissa 11 0.49 58 3.06 427.27
Punjab 640 28.78 50 2.64 -92.19
Maharashtra 67 3.01 48 2.53 -28.36
Tripura 141 6.34 10 0.53 -92.91
Nagaland 323 14.52
- -

Other states 132 5.94 116 6.11 -12.12
India 2224 100.00 1897 100.00 -14.70














48

Table 2.26: Growth in Number of Reapers in 2003 over 1992
1992 2003 Growth over 1992 States/UTs
in 00 in 00
Madhya Pradesh 9 0.30 62697 61.67 696533.33
Orissa
- -
36202 35.61
Tamil Nadu 195 6.44 694 0.68 255.90
West Bengal 149 4.92 588 0.58 294.63
Rajasthan 15 0.50 311 0.31 1973.33
Uttar Pradesh 2364 78.12 292 0.29 -87.65
Bihar 10 0.33 260 0.26 2500.00
Punjab
- -
211 0.21
Andhra Pradesh 13 0.43 151 0.15 1061.54
Gujarat 149 4.92 16 0.02 -89.26
Other states 122 4.03 248 0.24 103.28
India 3026 100.00 101670 100.00 3259.88

Table 2.27: State-wise Animal operated implements and machinery in India in 2003
Part-I
Cultivator Wetland puddler Cart Ghanis States/UTs
' 00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 00
Andhra Pradesh 13193 21.63 5888 16.60 8482 8.40 147 7.60
Uttar Pradesh 11224 18.40 11359 32.03 13580 13.44 201 10.39
Karnataka 10118 16.59 1581 4.46 7608 7.53 165 8.53
Assam 6441 10.56 2640 7.44 497 0.49 25 1.29
Madhya Pradesh 4482 7.35 2901 8.18 14882 14.73 181 9.35
Maharashtra 4180 6.85 1056 2.98 11437 11.32 104 5.37
Bihar 4080 6.69 505 1.42 1702 1.68 70 3.62
Gujarat 2390 3.92 721 2.03 5354 5.30 178 9.20
Rajasthan 2093 3.43 2290 6.46 6029 5.97 35 1.81
Tamil Nadu 610 1.00 551 1.55 1559 1.54 70 3.62
Himachal Pradesh 593 0.97 596 1.68 24 0.02 56 2.89
Orissa 380 0.62 951 2.68 5417 5.36 375 19.38
Haryana 353 0.58 43 0.12 3314 3.28 83 4.29
Uttaranchal 229 0.38 696 1.96 259 0.26 9 0.47
Jammu and Kashmir 160 0.26 1049 2.96 48 0.05 27 1.40
Chhatisgarh 114 0.19 274 0.77 4874 4.83 65 3.36
Jharkhand 108 0.18 1374 3.87 3628 3.59 59 3.05
Punjab 100 0.16 15 0.04 2996 2.97 27 1.40
Manipur 46 0.08 140 0.39 155 0.15 5 0.26
Other states 92 0.15 833 2.35 9169 9.08 53 2.74
India 60986 100 35463 100 101014 100 1935 100



49
Table 2.28: Growth of Animal operated implements and machinery in 2003 (Nos.)
Part-II
S`cane crusher Disc harrow Seed-fertilizer drill Leveler States/UTs
' 00 ' 00 ' 00 ' 00
West Bengal 102 2.35 628 2.37 166 0.33 38641 32.28
Delhi 109 2.51 188 0.71 1344 2.63 12576 10.51
Assam 32 0.74 111 0.42 22 0.04 11869 9.92
Chhatisgarh 127 2.92 474 1.79 265 0.52 9167 7.66
Chandigarh 1931 44.43 4092 15.44 3296 6.46 6434 5.37
Tripura 381 8.77 5090 19.21 8740 17.13 5388 4.50
Jharkhand 194 4.46 9530 35.96 7537 14.77 5320 4.44
Madhya Pradesh 221 5.09 584 2.20 252 0.49 4633 3.87
Mizoram 171 3.93 1685 6.36 11135 21.82 4204 3.51
Uttaranchal 11 0.25 373 1.41 42 0.08 3525 2.94
Lakshadweep 7 0.16 59 0.22 20 0.04 2895 2.42
Orissa 38 0.87 948 3.58 6709 13.15 2737 2.29
Bihar 47 1.08 184 0.69 106 0.21 2302 1.92
Pondicherry 460 10.58 893 3.37 6691 13.11 2252 1.88
Uttar Pradesh 349 8.03 635 2.40 4192 8.21 2039 1.70
Daman and Diu 66 1.52 203 0.77 84 0.16 1550 1.29
Jammu and Kashmir 9 0.21 150 0.57 124 0.24 1440 1.20
Haryana 21 0.48 517 1.95 229 0.45 962 0.80
Arunachal Pradesh 1 0.02 0 0.00 1 0.00 622 0.52
Nagaland 60 1.38 119 0.45 63 0.12 392 0.33
Kerala 4 0.09 13 0.05 1 0.00 264 0.22
Gujarat 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 141 0.12
Other states 5 0.12 23 0.09 14 0.03 353 0.29
India 4346 100 26499 100 51034 100 119706 100

















50
Table 2.29: State-wise Number of Plant Protection equipments in India in 2003
Sprayers/dusters operated by
Manual Power Tractor
States/UTs
00 00 00
Maharashtra 5316 13.21 1606 26.43 112 6.52
Karnataka 4704 11.69 852 14.02 126 7.34
Andhra Pradesh 4545 11.29 1902 31.30 315 18.35
Madhya Pradesh 4263 10.59 312 5.13 104 6.06
Gujarat 4201 10.44 129 2.12 66 3.84
Punjab 2800 6.96 80 1.32 415 24.17
Haryana 2365 5.88 70 1.15 102 5.94
Rajasthan 2183 5.42 69 1.14 155 9.03
Uttar Pradesh 1991 4.95 83 1.37 40 2.33
Chhatisgarh 1421 3.53 46 0.76 15 0.87
Assam 1209 3.00 13 0.21 1 0.06
Orissa 925 2.30 162 2.67 68 3.96
Himachal Pradesh 916 2.28 101 1.66 3 0.17
Bihar 893 2.22 42 0.69 109 6.35
Tamil Nadu 792 1.97 427 7.03 24 1.40
Jharkhand 534 1.33 19 0.31 33 1.92
Kerala 471 1.17 22 0.36 5 0.29
Jammu and Kashmir 361 0.90 121 1.99 12 0.70
Uttaranchal 250 0.62 4 0.07 7 0.41
Other states 106 0.26 16 0.26 5 0.29
India 40246 100 6076 100 1717 100



5
1

T
a
b
l
e

2
.
3
0
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

l
i
f
t
i
n
g

d
e
v
i
c
e
s

i
n

I
n
d
i
a
-

2
0
0
3

M
a
n
u
a
l

A
n
i
m
a
l

D
i
e
s
e
l

E
n
g
i
n
e

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

p
u
m
p

D
r
i
p

S
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r

S
t
a
t
e
s
/
U
T
s


0
0


0
0


0
0


0
0


0
0


0
0


M
a
d
h
y
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

4
1

0
.
4
8

1
1
1

4
.
1
1

4
3
6
5

6
.
0
3

1
5
4
2
4

1
8
.
2
6

2
1
5

4
.
9
4

7
0
1

9
.
5
3

A
n
d
h
r
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

1
3
8

1
.
6
0

9
3

3
.
4
4

1
4
2
1

1
.
9
6

1
3
7
0
5

1
6
.
2
3

5
9
1

1
3
.
5
9

3
5
4

4
.
8
1

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

1
8
4

2
.
1
3

5
8

2
.
1
5

1
2
0
3

1
.
6
6

9
6
6
7

1
1
.
4
5

9
6
2

2
2
.
1
2

4
1
4

5
.
6
3

T
a
m
i
l

N
a
d
u

8
1

0
.
9
4

6
7

2
.
4
8

2
3
7
0

3
.
2
7

7
8
9
2

9
.
3
4

1
1
0
0

2
5
.
2
9

4
2
7

5
.
8
0

K
a
r
n
a
t
a
k
a

3
3

0
.
3
8

3
4

1
.
2
6

1
1
0
8

1
.
5
3

6
9
6
1

8
.
2
4

6
3
5

1
4
.
6
0

6
5
8

8
.
9
5

R
a
j
a
s
t
h
a
n

2
6

0
.
3
0

3
5
8

1
3
.
2
4

8
4
4
4

1
1
.
6
7

6
5
5
3

7
.
7
6

1
3
8

3
.
1
7

3
0
8
4

4
1
.
9
2

U
t
t
a
r

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

7
1
6

8
.
3
1

2
3
4

8
.
6
6

2
8
0
8
3

3
8
.
8
0

4
8
7
4

5
.
7
7

3
9

0
.
9
0

8
5

1
.
1
6

P
u
n
j
a
b

6
4
6

7
.
4
9

1
2

0
.
4
4

2
5
3
3

3
.
5
0

4
6
8
8

5
.
5
5

4

0
.
0
9

3

0
.
0
4

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

7
7

0
.
8
9

3
4

1
.
2
6

4
3
6
7

6
.
0
3

4
6
8
3

5
.
5
4

1
1
8

2
.
7
1

3
4
2

4
.
6
5

K
e
r
a
l
a

1
1
0
7

1
2
.
8
4

2
3
9

8
.
8
4

2
9
5

0
.
4
1

3
9
6
9

4
.
7
0

3
7
9

8
.
7
1

3
7
2

5
.
0
6

H
a
r
y
a
n
a

6
3
9

7
.
4
1

6
3

2
.
3
3

2
7
5
9

3
.
8
1

2
7
2
4

3
.
2
3

4
0

0
.
9
2

5
3
3

7
.
2
5

C
h
h
a
t
i
s
g
a
r
h

2
1
4

2
.
4
8

1
0

0
.
3
7

4
2
9

0
.
5
9

9
4
0

1
.
1
1

1
8

0
.
4
1

9
4

1
.
2
8

W
e
s
t

B
e
n
g
a
l

0

0
.
0
0

0

0
.
0
0

5
6
8
3

7
.
8
5

7
4
2

0
.
8
8

0

0
.
0
0

0

0
.
0
0

B
i
h
a
r

9
3
0

1
0
.
7
9

2
0
5

7
.
5
8

6
2
8
3

8
.
6
8

6
2
1

0
.
7
4

3
5

0
.
8
0

1
3

0
.
1
8

O
r
i
s
s
a

4
2
8

4
.
9
7

3
9

1
.
4
4

7
4
3

1
.
0
3

3
5
1

0
.
4
2

1
4

0
.
3
2

6
6

0
.
9
0

J
h
a
r
k
h
a
n
d

2
1
5
3

2
4
.
9
8

2
3
0

8
.
5
1

1
6
6
0

2
.
2
9

2
1
4

0
.
2
5

1
3

0
.
3
0

3
3

0
.
4
5

J
a
m
m
u

a
n
d

K
a
s
h
m
i
r

1
0
4

1
.
2
1

1
2

0
.
4
4

7
8

0
.
1
1

1
2
9

0
.
1
5

1
3

0
.
3
0

1
8

0
.
2
4

U
t
t
a
r
a
n
c
h
a
l

2
0
6

2
.
3
9

8

0
.
3
0

4
3
5

0
.
6
0

1
0
7

0
.
1
3

3

0
.
0
7

6

0
.
0
8

A
s
s
a
m

8
2
2

9
.
5
4

8
8
5

3
2
.
7
4

6

0
.
0
1

1

0
.
0
0

0

0
.
0
0

0

0
.
0
0

O
t
h
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
s

7
5

0
.
8
7

1
1

0
.
4
1

1
0
9

0
.
1
5

2
1
6

0
.
2
6

3
2

0
.
7
4

1
5
3

2
.
0
8

I
n
d
i
a

8
6
2
0

1
0
0

2
7
0
3

1
0
0

7
2
3
7
4

1
0
0

8
4
4
6
1

1
0
0

4
3
4
9

1
0
0

7
3
5
6

1
0
0

52
Figure 2.2.: Number of Irrigation Pumps in India from 1951-1995
0.08 0.12 0.23
0.47
1.55
2.36
3.10
5.97
4.66
5.10
0.03 0.05
0.16
0.42
1.62
2.44
3.57
6.35
9.70
11.70
0.11 0.17
0.39
0.89
3.16
4.80
6.67
12.32
14.36
16.80
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
1951 1956 1961 1966 1972 1977 1982 1987 1991 1995
M
i
I
I
i
o
n
Diesel pumps Electric pumps Total

Note: Data Ior 1991 and 1995 are collected Irom ManuIacturers Association.
Source: Agricultural Research Data Book, 2001.



To conclude, mechanization across states shows wide variations with some states
leading in some types oI mechanisation while others in other types. But, tractors seem
to lead to other mechanical operations. Further, commercial and high value crops like
potato drive mechanisation and use oI modern machinery besides irrigation.























53
Appendix 2.1

Table 2.32: Farm Mechanization Policy of NABARD
Particulars Year
1999-
2000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-03
ReIinance rate ()
CBs

First time 70 70 90 90
Second time 40 40 90 N.S.
SCBs 80 80 90 90
SLDBs
First time 90 90 90 90
Second time 40 40 90 N.S.
RRBs
First time 80 80 90 90
Second time 40 40 90 N.S.
Down Payment ()
First time 15 15 15 As per RBI
Instructions
Second time 30 30 30 As per RBI
Instructions
Minimum acreage oI perennially
irrigated land (acres)

New 8 8 8 8
Secondhand N.S. N.S. N.S. 8
Repayment period (years) 9 9 9 9
Incremental income to be taken Ior
repayment ()
50 50 50 50
Minimum period Ior second tractor
(years)
3 3 3 3
Note: N.S. Not speciIied

SBI FARM MECHANISATION SCHEMES
Purpose
Credit Ior purchase oI Iarm equipment and machinery Ior agricultural operations.
The scheme covers activities ranging Irom purchase oI tractors and
accessories,trailers, power tillers, combine harvesters, power sprayers, dusters,
threshers etc.
Who are eligible for Term Loans

Farmers owning mare than minimum acreage oI perennially irrigated lands are
54
eligible (Ior power tillers 2 acres, Ior tractors 4 acres Ior ~ 35 HP and 6 acres Ior
above 35 HP and Ior combine 8 acres). Eligibility Ior purchase oI other Iarm
equipment is decided on the income generated by the agri activity.

Loan amount
Upto Rs. 50,000/- 100 oI the cost oI the asset is provided as loan. Above Rs.
50,000/- upto 85 oI the cost oI the asset provided as loan.
Quotation Ior the assets to be purchased have to be submitted. Land records to
ascertain cultivation rights title to the property should also be submitted.

Security
Amount of Loan Security to be furnished
upto Rs. 50,000 (other than tractors) i) Hypothecation oI assets
Iinanced
Above Rs. 50,000 and upto Rs. 1,00,000 Ior
tractors
i. Hypothecation oI assets
Iinanced
Above Rs. 50,000 (other than tractors)
and
Above Rs.1,00,000 Ior tractors
i. Hypothecation oI assets
Iinanced

ii. Mortgage oI land

Repayment oI loan will be in quarterly/halI yearly / yearly instalments depending on
the harvest oI the crops or the liquidity created by the agriculture activity undertaken.
A maximum period oI 9 yrs is allowed.

SBI -TRACTOR PLUS
SBI has entered into tie-up with TAFE Ltd, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Escorts Ltd,
SAME Deutz - Farh India Ltd, HMT Ltd, Eicher Tractors, Punjab Tractors Ltd
(Swaraj), International Tractors Ltd, Indo Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd , New
Holland Tractors Ltd, L & T 1ohn Deere Pvt Ltd Ior Iinancing tractors and with
VST Tiller and Tracors Ltd, Ior Iinancing power tillers with Iollowing concessionary
terms.
55
a. The companies oIIer rebate on the price.
b. Companies oIIer additional service / warranty.
c. SBI Iinances with a low margin oI 10 (amount oI contribution Irom the
applicant).
SBM Agri Farm Scheme
Mechanisation oI Iarming has been considered as one oI the important inputs in
Iarming, to complete the Iarm operations on time and to increase production and
reduce the drudgery oI human labour. With the rapid advancement in agriculture,
there has been an increased use oI Iarm machanisation equipments like Tractors and
Power Tillers which help us tiding over the labour problem Ior Agriculture

It has been assisting the Iarmers Ior purchase oI Tractors / Power tillers etc. However,
with a view to enhance our lending under Farm Mechanisation, our Bank has entered
into an MOU with the Iollowing Tractor manuIacturing Companies:
a)Escorts
b)HMT Limited
c)TAFE
d)Swaraj
e)New Holland Tractor (Ford)
I)SAME Tractors
g)International Tractors Limited (Sonalika)
h)Eicher Tractors
i)L&T John Deere private Limited
j)Bajaj tempo Limited
k)Mahindra Gujarat Tractor
l) Mahindra and Mahindra Limited
mStandard Combines (P) Ltd
n)Indo Farm Tractors
o)SAS Motors ltd., (Angad Tractors)
p)Preet Tractors (p) Ltd

56
Power Tiller companies
a) M/S Greaves Cotton Limited
b) M/S Bengal Tools Limited
Norms for financing of Tractors
Acreage
The borrower should possess a minimum oI 4 acres oI wet land or 6 acres oI dry land
to ensure viability oI the medium term loan to be extended Ior the purpose. Tractor
Iinance to Iarmers who are having lesser land holdings than stipulated can also be
considered on a case to case basis provided the applicant is having suIIicient income
Irom other sources to service the debt
Economic use of Tractor
The tractor should have a minimum oI 1000 hrs production work in agri. per year
either on own Iarm or on custom hire or both
Minimum 3 implements should be owned by the beneIiciary (either with bank Iinance
or purchased with own Iunds)
The Tractor Iinanced should have the necessary commercial test report as per BIS
code issued by CFMTTI (Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute),
Budni, Madhya Pradesh
Margin Money
Down payment in respect oI Iarm mechanization loan Ior new tractors will be not less
than 10 oI the investment cost in case oI tractors and implements
Rate of interest
10.75 pa irrespective oI the limit
Repayment Period
Maximum 9 years
57
Registration of the tractor
The tractor should be registered with the concerned Regional Transport Authority
Insurance
Comprehensive Insurance cover should be obtained in respect oI the assets acquired.
Premium Ior Iirst year will be paid by the concerned Company dealers Selection of
Tractors
Bank may consider Iinancing oI tractors on the basis oI viability oI individual
proposals but the choice and selection oI such tractors may be leIt to the choice oI
individual beneIiciaries
Security
As per Bank`s norms:

(a) Hypothecation oI Tractors
(b) Equitable Mortgage oI lands
Punjab National Bank has signed Memorandum oI Understanding with 12
manuIacturers oI Iarm equipments and entered into tie-up arrangements Ior exclusive
concession to the Iarmers purchasing tractor through loans availed Irom Punjab
National Bank.















58
Table 2.33: Company wise discount on tractor loans
S..No. Tractor Company Amount of
discount
Address of the Company
1. Eicher Tractors Rs.4000/- Eicher Tractors, Plot No.1, Sector D,
Industrial Area, Mandideep,
Distt.Raisen(M.P.) Pin Code 462046
2. Escorts Limited Rs.6000/- Escorts Ltd., 18/4 Mathura Road,
Faridabad 121007
3. New Holland Tractors
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Rs.4000/- New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
52, Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New
Delhi 110020
4. Mahindra & Mahindra
Ltd.
Rs.3000/- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mahendra
Towers, 3
rd
Floor, Worli, Mumbai 400
018

5. International Tractors
Ltd.
Rs.6000/- International Tractors Ltd. Sonalika
House, 283, AGCR Enclave, Karkar
Dooma, Delhi - 110092

6. Punjab Tractors
Limited
Rs.4000/- Punjab Tractors Limited, Phase Iv,
S.A.S. Nagar, District Ropar - 160055
7. L&T John Deere Pvt.
Limited
Rs.7000/- L&T John Deere Pvt. Limited,
Sansaswadi, Taluka-Shirur, District
Pune 412208
8. Indo Farm Equipment
Limited
Rs.6000/- to
Rs.6500/-
M/s.Indo Farm Equipment Limited
S.C.O. 859, N.A.C. Manimajra, Kalka
Road, Chandigarh
9. HMT Ltd. Tractor
Business Group
Rs.4000/- General Marketing Manager (TN), M/s.
HMT Ltd. Tractor Business Group,
Bharat Yuvak Bhawan, 1, Jai Singh
Road, NEW DELHI 110001
10. Tractors and Farm
Equipment Ltd.
Rs.4000/- Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., C-
3/6, Ist Floor, Prashant Vihar, New
Delhi 110085
11. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
( Balwan Tractors)
Rs.7000/- Bajaj Tempo Ltd., B-12, Kalindi
Colony near Maharani Bagh, New
Delhi 110008
12. SAME DEUTZ-FAHR
India (P) Limited
Rs.8000/-
Rs.15,000/-
SAME DEUTZ-FAHR India (P)
Limited, E-9, Kalindi Colony, Opp.
Maharani Bagh, New Delhi 110065

Bank oI India has tied up with SAS Motors Ior giving cheaper loans to Iarmers
buying the small tractor Angad`, costing Rs 99,000 only. For small Iarmers, the
initial cost oI getting a tractor will come down to less than Rs 18,000 as the rest is
being Iinanced by BoI under a new scheme BoI-Angad Farm Mechanisation Tractor
Scheme`. The scheme, being oIIered by 174 dealers oI SAS Motors and 700 BoI
branches across the nation, oIIers a loan oI 85 oI the cost (about Rs 81,000) at a
59
concession rate oI 8.5-10.5 Ior seven to nine years. The 22-HP tractor is almost
33 cheaper than conventional tractors, more Iuel-eIIicient and can be used Ior 40
crop and soil varieties. Angad tractors, being assembled by SAS Motors, is designed
and manuIactured by China`s Shandong ShiIeng Company Ltd.
Indo Farm Equipment Limited a maiden tractor manuIacturing company in
Himachal Pradesh has entered into an MoU with Punjab National Bank Ior Iinancing
oI its tractors on liberal terms. As a part oI understanding, Punjab National Bank will
provide loans upto Rs 2 lakh at interest oI 10.5 and margin money oI only 5.
Union Bank oI India has signed a memorandum oI understanding Ior a tractor
Iinancing arrangement with Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Ltd and L&T - John Deere
Pvt. Ltd on all India basis. To be eligible Ior Iinance under this arrangement, the
borrower should have 3 acres oI perennially irrigated land whose valuation should not
be less than the loan amount applied Ior. Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Ltd oIIered
discount oI Rs 6,000 Ior tractors up to 45 H.P. and Rs 6,500 Ior tractors above 45 H.P.
L&T - John Deere Pvt. Ltd has oIIered discount oI Rs 4,000.






















60
Chapter 3
Indian Tractor Industry: growth, structure, and dynamics
Introduction
Indian agriculture uses many types oI Iarm machines (table 3.1). But, more signiIicant
among them are tractors, tillers, combine harvestors, reapers, and threshers. The
Indian tractor market is dominated by low price, no Irills, rugged, versatile and low to
medium powered tractors. Only 5 Indian Iarmers possess tractors while 22 use it.
The rest 75 still depend on bullocks Ior Iarming. And, those who own tractors are
rich Iarmers as can be gauged Irom this Iact: tractors cultivate almost one-third oI the
country`s arable land. But two per cent oI Iarmers own one-third oI this land. This
means that most Iarmers possessing tractors are rich and own large land holdings.
Second, tractors are available on hire. By 2000, India had about 2.67 million tractors
but category wise, about 1.47 million tractors were in the 31-40 HP category which
many argue the Indian Iarmers don`t require. What Indian Iarmers need are small
tractors. But, one has to keep in mind that tractors in India are concentrated only in a
Iew States. Tractors have Iailed to make a headway into the agricultural sector in the
country. The main reason is that the price Ior cheapest tractor available is nearly Rs 2
lakh (reIer table 2.8).
Table 3.1: Type of Farm Machinery Industries in India (2000-01)
Equipment No. of Units
Agricultural tractors 14
Power tillers 7
Agricultural tools and implements 6980
Combines 15
Reapers 45
Tractors parts and accessories oI agricultural machinery 546
Earth moving machinery and parts 188
Diesel oil engines 200
Rice processing machinery 300
Dairy and Iood industries 500
Village craItsmen 1 million
Source: Agricultural Research Data Book, 2001.




61
This chapter examines the emergence, growth, structure and business strategies oI the
three new entrants in the Indian tractor industry especially who were small timers and
have rags to riches` story and others who are still small operators with small tractors
(small tractor companies) and three local small tractor manuIacturers and markeeters.
It makes case studies oI three organised sector tractor manuIacturers and marketers
who were earlier into manuIacture and sale oI agricultural machines other than
tractors and have recently diversiIied into tractors. It also examines the operations oI
three small tractor manuIacturers who were earlier into diesel engine manuIacturing.
The other major players, besides Sonalika, which is traditionally a thresher
manuIacturer and launched tractors in 1995 are Preet and Standard. Where Standard
started making tractors in 2002, Preet entered the market in 2002.
1. International Tractors Limited (ITL)- Sonalika Group
ProIile
ITL Group annual turnover is 220 Million US$ (Rs. 1000 crore). Sonalika Group is
the IiIth largest tractor manuIacturer in India. Apart Irom tractors its product line
includes multi-utility vehicles, three wheelers, engines, hydraulic systems , casting ,
Iorging, brake System, automotive components manuIacturing, and various Iarm
equipments and implements. An average growth rate oI 30 makes it one oI the
Iastest growing corporates in India. It also happens to be one oI the very Iew debt Iree
companies in India. It employs about 2500 people. It has accreditations like ISO
9001:2000 and ISO 14001.
ITL was incorporated on October 17, 1995. ITL manuIacture various tractors under
Sonalika brand ranging Irom 30-75 HP, and CERES brand ranging Irom 60-90 HP.
These tractors are also exported to various other countries including France, South
AIrica, Australia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Canada, Nepal, and Bangladesh etc. It is also
the Iirst tractor manuIacturer in the country producing 50 and 60 HP tractors Iitted
with diesel engines manuIactured in-house, meeting Bharat II norms oI smoke and
mass Emission. These engines have been tested and certiIied by ARAI, Pune and the
United States Environmental Norms Agency, Washington DC. These certiIications
enabled SONALIKA tractors to enter the world market. All the models oI tractors and
62
combine harvesters manuIactured are tested and approved by Central Farm Machinery
and Tractors Training & Testing Institute, Budni (MP) India, (the Government oI
India institute authorized Ior issuing test reports). In 2002-03, SONALIKA tractors
received "The Best Quality Award" Irom the Govt oI India.
The company started manuIacturing tractors in 1997. BeIore that, it was into thresher
manuIacturing since 1969. The design oI Sonalika Tractor has been prepared by
Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI) (Durgapur)- the premier
design institute oI the Government oI India's Research and Development Department.
The institute, also prepared the design oI Swaraj Tractor. CMERI transIerred
technology Ior Sonalika Tractors Ior all models ranging Irom 32-60 HP. The
chairman oI the company was an employee with the LIC and is at present president oI
the Tractor ManuIacturers Association oI India (TMAI). He is also the ambassador oI
India in Macedonia in East Europe. The company is one oI the three enterprises oI the
group, the other two being Sonalika Agro which makes threshers and combines, and
International cars and motors which launched Rhino Jeep in 2006. The other group
companies are: International SoIt Web Limited, Sonalika Farm Equipments, and
Auto Components Industries Corporation
It is one oI the Iastest growing companies and has already produced 1.7 lakh tractors
in 10 years. Since 2006, the company has technical and Iinancial collaboration with
Yanmar oI Japan and Sonalika has a technical collaboration agreement with world
leaders, Renault Agriculture oI France in July 2000. As a result oI this joint eIIort,
Sonalika has developed the world class Euro-II range at its Iully automated plant at
Hoshiarpur.
Renault Agriculture is a subsidiary oI the Renault Group with 51 stake owned by
CLAAS, Germany. Renault Agriculture is the largest tractor manuIacturing company
in Europe. It produces tractors in the range oI 50-250 HP, having worldwide
distribution ands sales network. Renault Agriculture-ITL agreement results in the
production oI Ceres and Solis tractor under Sonalika brand name. With a turnover oI
more than t 637 billion (2002), Renault is one oI the 30 largest companies in the
world. Each year Renault produces over two million vehicles and employs over
140,000 people. Renault has alliance with NISSAN to complement the Iinancial and
technical strengths bringing in synergic growth. CLAAS is a leading manuIacturer oI
63
Iarming equipment with a global presence. It is the world market leader in Iorage
harvester. Apart Irom the Iarming machines, CLAAS also produces hydraulic
components and transmissions. CLAAS purchased 51 stake in Renault Agriculture
in March 2003. It recorded a turnover oI over 1,000 million t in 2005-06.
Production capacity and pricing oI tractors
ITL has its own engine and gear manuIacturing plants. The brand name which has
been extended Irom threshers is the only brand name Ior all products including
tractors. The company exports over 5 oI its total sale to countries like South AIrica,
U.S., Bangladesh and Nepal where Soanalika is the market leader. Starting with 2770
tractor sales in 1997-98, the sale increased to 26082 in 2004-05 (table 3.2), which is
almost 80 oI the capacity oI 50,000 tractors per year. It has 16 models (30 to 75 HP)
oI tractors The tractors are priced keeping in mind the cost oI production and the
competition. The average liIe oI Sonalika tractor is 20 years. 80 oI the components
are produced in-house and the rest outsourced. The company has no ancillary units
and there are multiple vendors Ior each item to be sourced. The company provides
design and technical know-how to the suppliers with whom it has transaction based
linkages. It started making combines in 2000.
Sonalika market

The company which has 11 market share in India in tractors and 18 in Punjab,
does not have much market penetration beyond north India, especially in the southern
states. The company considers Mahindra as its major competitor. The company also
leverages its distribution network Ior threshers and knowledge oI the rural market. 60
oI its market in north India is replacement market ranging Irom 50 in UP to 75
in Haryana and 90 in Punjab.






64
Table 3.2: Production of Sonalika tractors and farm equipment (1996-7-2004-5)
Year Tractors (Numbers)
Agriculture Machinery
(Numbers)
1996-1997 396 5000
1997-1998 2770 7500
1998-1999 6211 12000
1999-2000 8773 18000
2000-2001 13496 24000
2001-2002 17002 32000
2002-2003 16464 17820
2003-2004 20020 16090
2004-2005 26082

Distribution management

It has a dealer network oI 850, out oI which 200 are in U.P. alone and 65 stockists and
25 exclusive spare parts stockiest. The major conditions Ior becoming its tractor
dealer include experience in tractor or related business even as salesman or mechanic,
Rs. one lakh security and capacity to buy 5-10 tractors on cash basis or bank
guarantee. The company provides two week training at its Hoshiarpur oIIice. The
dealers are given targets and are supposed to maintain good showroom and one
mechanic at least. The dealers are to sell at least 20 oI the total tractors sold in the
area. The salesman strength depends on the size oI the market though one salesman
per block is minimum. The company has a school to train drivers and mechanics at
Aurangabad where upto 1000 persons can be trained every year.

Promotion

The company does not buyback second hand tractors and does not participate in
second hand tractor market to sell, buy or promote its tractor brand. The major media
used Ior advertising and sale promotion are TV, radio, newspapers, pamphlets,
hoardings, wall paintings, and trolley painting. The management perceives bright
Iuture Ior the tractor industry and sees a growing market Ior it. It has tractor Iinance
agreements with all the major banks and company gives Rs. 6,000 discount per tractor
Ior a bank loan. The company Iocuses on product quality Ior brand diIIerentiation.
65
Major aspects oI product quality include hydraulic capacity, Iield speed, road speed,
comIort, HP and ergonomical Ieatures. There is subsidy oI Rs. 30,000 Ior all tractors
below 35 HP. The quality image oI the company`s brand can be assessed Irom the Iact
that when it was launched, the dealers were not willing to take up dealership as the
tractor was seen as a jugad-meaning a hotchpotch product. ThereIore, it appointed
stockists who, in turn, appointed dealers and gave them credit.

Bank linkage

ITL has signed MoUs with various banks all over the country Ior tractor retail
Iinance, which is giving a special impetus to company. It has resulted in easy
availability oI loans to Iarmers coupled with quick disposal oI cases. The payment
rotations have also become Iaster Irom the dealers to the company, which helps cost
cutting. It has alliances with the Iollowing banks:

Canara Bank
ICICI Bank
Axis Bank
PNB
SBP
Andhra Bank
CBI
Allahabad Bank
SBBJ
SB oI Indore
Corporation Bank
Bank oI Maharashtra
UBI
OBC and
Centurion Bank oI Punjab

Standard Tractors

Standard Tractors is a sibling company oI the well-known manuIacturing company
Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd.`, which is one oI the leading manuIacturers oI selI-
propelled and tractor-driven combines (Combine Harvesters) since 1975 and as a
company under the companies Act since 1999. The Registered OIIice oI the company
is situated at Standard Chowk, Barnala, in Punjab. Standard Tractors was launched on
66
21 September 2000 at a Kissan Mela (Farmer Fair) at Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. The other products oI the group are:

1.Tractor-driven harvester combines: The most popular model is TSC 513. Another
model is C-412. The company (Standard Combines) is producing around 800 nos. per
annum. These are sold within India and exported to South AIrican countries as well.
2.SelI-propelled harvester combines: Standard Combines is producing around 500
combines per annum. These are sold within India and also exported.
3.SelI-propelled straw reaper: The only model is C-417. The company (Standard
Combines) has produced and sold Iew units and is ready to manuIacture more as per
demand
4.Tractors: Standard Tractors is now manuIacturing 7 models (mentioned earlier),
around 5000 nos. per annum. Exporting to South AIrican countries.
5.Three-wheelers/ Iour-wheelers: Based on three models oI 3-wheelers two
passenger carriers (Standard Leader` and Standard NS-38`) and one cargo (Standard
Sharp), and one model oI 4-wheeler (Standard NS-49), Standard Tractors will start
production oI 100 units per annum per model.
6.Cranes: A model oI hydraulic mobile crane (HMC 9000) is under Iinal stage oI
processing Ior ARAI approval. We will start its mass production soon, initially 60
cranes per annum.
7.Front-loader and excavator: The Company is producing Iew machines every year, in
response to demand.
8.Electric mini car: A 4-seater 3-wheeled battery-and-motor operated mini car will be
produced. It is in the advanced stage oI development in Standard Tractors.
9.Scooters and Motorcycles: One scooter model has already been developed and plans
Ior developing a series oI motorcycle models are on.

In Standard Tractors`, tractors are being manuIactured in the range oI 30, 35, 40, 45,
50, 60, and 75 hp, since 2000, with respective model names: Standard 330, Standard
335, Standard 340, Standard 345, Standard 450, Standard 460, and Standard 475.
Engines Ior all these tractor models, except the last one, are manuIactured within the
plant as Standard Engines`, in speciIic names SE 335, SE 345, SE 450 and SE 460,
respectively. All the above-mentioned models oI Standard Engines have shown
compliance to the TREM-III emission norms, as have been veriIied by the ARAI.
67
Another Iour models oI tractor oI 25 hp, 50 hp (a variant), 55 hp and 60 hp range are
under Iinal stage oI development.

For tractor manuIacturing, Standard has collaboration with Zeater oI Czechoslovakia
Ior engines and Urasis oI Poland which is a licensee oI Messey Fergusson. Its
production capacity is 10 thousand per annum and sales oI the order oI 4 to 5 hundred
tractors per month. The company Iocuses on product quality Ior its marketing. But
more recently, accessories, style and look have also become important besides
Iunctional utility and tractor is now a multi-Iunctional machine. On the other hand
implements are not brand or model speciIic. The leveraging oI the combine brand
name- especially tractor driven- has been an important Iactor in the success oI
Standard tractors.
Mr. Nachhattar Singh comes oI a Sikh Ramgarhia Iamily oI Bhari Gotra which hails
Irom a small village named Handiaya oI Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur, in Punjab. His
brother Mr. Joginder Singh is the Managing Director oI the Combine Division` and
also serves as the Joint Managing Director oI M/S Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd.
There is plenty oI ancillirization and sub-contracting in tractor industry. ThereIore,
though Standard has its own engine plant, 60-70 oI its tractor comes Irom outside
suppliers and only 30-40 oI value addition is done by Standard. Most oI its
suppliers are located in Punjab. 10 oI the parts which are the used in engine are
manuIactured by the company itselI and balance oI 90 are the bought Irom outside.
Engines Ior all the tractor models, except one, are manuIactured within the plant as
Standard Engines`, which have been proved to be Trem-III compliant.

The product range oI tractors at standard includes 5 models 35 HP and 45 HP which
are 3 cylinder and 50, 60 and 75 HP which are Iour cylinder tractors. The company
manuIactures the tractors in three colures: Red, Blue, Green. The company
manuIactures 350 tractors each month. The company has 300 suppliers Ior engine
and 400 suppliers Ior other parts. Eight to ten engines are assembled in each shiIt.
The company manuIactures 20 tractors each day. The technical staII oI the company
is around 200-250 with 4 supervisors. Each tractor has a special Cultivator gear
68
which is called second high utility. Standard Tractors is now manuIacturing 7 models
(mentioned earlier), around 5000 tractors per annum.

The company manuIactures the tractors in three colures: Red, Blue, and Green. The
company manuIactures 350 tractors each month. The company has 300 suppliers with
engine and 400 suppliers without engine. Eight to ten engines are assembled in each
shiIt. The company manuIactures 20 tractors each day. The technical staII oI the
company is around 200-250 with 4 supervisors. 10 oI the parts which are used in
engine are manuIactured by the company itselI and balance oI 90 are bought Irom
outside. 60 oI the components used in manuIacture oI the tractors are produced by
the company itselI. This company is associated with John Deere. All the products are
manuIactures only in Barnala. Each tractor has a special Cultivator gear which is
called second high utility.

Sales and Distribution

So Iar as standard tractors are concerned, the sales are oI the order oI 4-5 thousand per
year accounting Ior only 1-2 oI the market in India. The company exports only 5
oI its total sales whereas the aim is to reach a minimum oI 15.

It has a dealer network oI 350 exclusive dealers with major sales coming Irom
Gujarat, MP and Maharashtra. Initially, a dealership was given Ior Rs. 50,000/- as
security and purchase oI one tractor by the dealer. Now, the security has been raised
to Rs. 1.1 lac and advance tractor purchase to two tractors to acquire a dealership.
Most oI the times, salesmen and mechanics oI competitors were made into dealers
which accounted Ior 40 oI total. All oI the dealers are exclusive dealers oI the
company. There is a gradual shiIt and demand towards higher HP tractors especially
more than 35 HP. The company spent about Rs. 2 crore on promotion which accounts
Ior about 1 to 2 oI its total turnover. Besides competitive pricing oI the tractor, the
company also oIIers higher margins than competitors to gain market share, this was
the strategy adopted by Sonalika as well in the beginning. The MRP oI the tractor is
Iixed and there is dealer net price (DNP) at which the tractor is sold to the dealer.
ThereIore, now the dealer margin per tractor is Iixed compared to the early situation
oI it being a percentage oI MRP. The company Iaces problem oI shortage oI
69
mechanics as well as their quality Ior providing eIIective aIter sale service. This is
complicated by the high turnover oI good mechanics.

The company had adopted a Gorilla strategy oI expansion oI distribution network by
roping in competitor`s distributors. There is no captive Iinance Iacility.

So Iar as aIter sales service is concerned, Sonalika changed the rules oI the gain
wherein it went in Ior dealerships without workshops and mechanics and company
taking care oI the aIter sales service. This helped the company (Sonalika) to penetrate
the market. The standard sales in Punjab are only 15 to 20 per month compared with
other States like Haryana where it is 30 to 40 per month. This was largely because oI
the initial practice oI granting dealerships in Punjab on personal grounds than any
proIessional policy.

The company is not able to cater to the demand because is not getting proper technical
man- power in combines. The company has its dealers in Ioreign countries as well.
The company itselI gives training to the mechanics who are working in the companies
service centre. The dealer net price is revised every year by the management. All the
products are manuIactures only in Barnala.

The company operates two shiIts in tractor division. It has besides permanent workers
contractual labour employed through the labour contractors. There is plenty oI reverse
engineering prevalent in the tractor industry and there have been many patent
violations with prominent cases oI PTL and Sonalika, HMT and Sonalika & Escort
and Sonalika. It is basically a high margin low volume business Ior dealers oI small
tractor players.
.
New tailor- made products

Companies like Mahindra & Mahindra, Punjab Tractors, Eicher Motors and HMT
have recently launched new models oI tractors suited to speciIic crop requirements.
For example, HMT already has two tractors Ior orchards (2522 Orchard Special 25
HP with low weight Ior orchards, wineyards and Kinnows in Punjab which is priced
at Rs. 25 lakh; and 3522C coastal special 35 HP Ior paddy cultivation in AP,
70
Karnataka and Tamilnadu. It is also about to launch a cotton special tractor oI 25 HP
soon. Similarly, Punjab Tractors is launching a potato special 25-35 HP tractor in
2008 costing Rs. 3.5-5 lakh. Eicher is also planning to launch an apple and orchard
special soon (Sally and Parameswaran, 2007).

Small Tractors

SAS Motors

Angad tractor is 22 HP priced at Rs.1.50 lakh. The company has three manuIacturing
units and has sold 3,000 units in last one and halI years. 95 oI Angad's current
customers were Iirst-time tractor buyers. Moreover, it has been approved by the
NABARD Ior concessional Iinance and subsidy. A Iarmer, on an average, spends Rs
48,000 per annum on two pairs oI bullocks Ior a Iive-year working liIe oI the animal.
The new tractor would replace not only the traditional bullocks and bullock cart but
also would oIIer the Iarmer various earning options apart Irom just ploughing the
Iield.

SAS produces Angad oI 15-24 HP ranges. The 15 HP engine oI the selI-propelled
Angad 150 Power Tiller can be attached to a rice cultivator or a rotovator and is
optimised Ior use in small and medium sized landholdings. Angad's Iarm implements
portIolio include a Power Tiller, Rotary cultivator and a rural transport vehicle to
Iacilitate connectivity between villages on oII-highway Kuccha roads. This machine
can also be harnessed Ior generating electricity Ior submersible irrigation pumps. The
electricity can be generated at less than Rs 4 a unit.
SAS Motors has its 100 owned-manuIacturing Iacility in China and three assembly
units in India at Pune, Kolkata and Bhopal. Each oI the units at Baramati and Bhopal
has a capacity oI 200 vehicles per month. SAS Motors has already started assembling
centres at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, Pune in Maharashtra, Cudappah in Andhra
Pradesh, and Hoogli in West Bengal. The Iactory at Ghaziabad has a capacity to
produce about 50 tractors a day.
71
SAS Motors has also introduced Angad rotary cultivator (rotavator) as a standard
accessory with the Angad 240 D tractor at a price oI Rs 15,000 against the price range
oI Rs 40,000 - Rs 60,000 Ior rotavators available in the market currently. The Angad
rotary cultivator can perIorm the Iunctions oI a disc harrow and a plough in a single
motion. Its design enables it to pulverise only the top layer while protecting the lower
layers oI the soil. The company is also introducing other Iarm implements such as rice
transplanters, mini combine harvesters, tillers and a range oI rural transport vehicles.
It is also working on an electric three-wheeler and 35 HP tractors.
SAS imports 85 oI the components Irom China, which is a mass producer oI
tractors. Components are imported, assembled here and rolled out. This explains the
low cost oI tractors and better still, costs may come down Iurther once the production
increases, by when the company plans to manuIacture its own spare parts. It decided
to import Irom China because it is the largest producer oI tractors, it produces 100
times more than India. Moreover, China and India have similar conditions in terms oI
Iarms, aIIordability, vast and diIIerent geographical areas, terrain, varying soil
conditions, remote rural areas etc. The task was to optimise technology Ior India.

The engine Ior Angad has been sourced Irom Laidong, a Chinese company and has a
technical collaboration agreement with SchiIeng, another Chinese company, which
sells 1.2 million agricultural vehicles annually. But, the company had done a complete
reverse engineering on these tractors, and Angad is a 100 Indianised product. The
engine conIirms to the Bharat Stage II emission norms. The 22-HP Angad 240D
tractors use a direct injection Iuel-eIIicient horizontal diesel engine with a catalytic
converter. A total investment oI Rs 70 lakh has been pumped in to the R&D oI the
tractor.

Sales, Competition and Markets

It has already sold 2,000 such tractors during 2003-04. The company is expected to
clock a turnover oI Rs. 40 crore in 2006 and has set a target to achieve a 10-Iold
increase in its turnover oI over Rs. 400 crore by 2009. The tractor, christened `Angad',
is not only halI the price oI the cheapest tractor available in the market today, but also
72
consumes 25 less Iuel and has 60 less maintenance costs. It can be repaired by a
cycle mechanic and assembled at a tehsil-level garage.
Distribution and promotion

The company plans to set up 2000 ''Angad Krishi Seva Kendras'' across the country.
Angad would set up dealerships at every tehsil in each district oI the Iour states to
start with. Workshops will be set up in each village so that an Angad owner need not
travel more than 15 km Ior repairs and maintenance. Andhra Pradesh and West
Bengal governments have invited SAS Motors to set up shops. As many as 135
modiIications have been made in the Chinese model to suit the needs oI Indian
Iarmers. Angad is claimed to be 40 cheaper than tractors oI comparable horsepower
available in the country and it has 30 lower maintenance costs. The tractor has
already been launched in Maharashtra, Gujarat and some parts oI Madhya Pradesh
and U.P

P. M diesels Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. P.M. Patel who is a Iounder is now the chairman oI the industry. He holds ITI
qualiIications. Mr. C.P. Patel is a MD oI the company who is double graduates
holding B.Com. and LLB degrees. The company has only one working shiIts. The
company`s tractor division has a total oI 70 people. Out oI which, 7 people are
technical and the rest are non technical. The management, account and Iinance, and
personnel and administration staII people are common Ior tractor division as well as
Ior the industry.

It has employed a total oI 450 people as shown in the table given below.


Table 3.3: Classification of PM Diesel Employees
Category oI staII Approximate staII strength
Technical 45
Non technical 45
Managerial 23
Casual and others 337
Total 450
Source: company records

73
Product profile
The company was established in 1963 and it began producing high speed diesel
engines. However, looking to the rising demand oI mini tractors in the market, it has
started manuIacturing mini tractors in 2004. The company had collaboration with a
German Iirm 'Motor and Fabric Hatz between 1985 and 1995 Ior transIer oI
technical know-how.

The brand name oI the company`s products is Field Marshal. It has not changed its
brand name since inception oI the company. It is producing mini tractor model FM
625 DI oI 9.5 HP capacity with single cylinder. Besides mini tractors, it is producing
diesel pump sets which are largely used Ior agricultural purposes, especially Ior
groundwater extraction and Ior surIace water liIting. It is also producing bio
Iertilizers.

The company assembles the mini tractor at its manuIacturing plant at Rajkot in
Gujarat. Except its diesel engine all other components are bought Irom the market.
The diesel engine costs Rs. 35,000 which accounts Ior 21 oI the mini tractor price.
It means the company purchases about 79 tractor components Irom 20 diIIerent SSI
units. OI the 20, 50 are located in Gujarat and the rest 50 are based outside
Gujarat. The company has inIormal tie-up with these SSIs which manuIacture
diIIerent types oI tractor components as per the taste and design oI the company.
These SSIs are Iree to sell these components to other market players.

The product got approved by Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), Automotive
Research Association oI India (ARAI) and RTO. The production capacity oI the
company is 500 tractors per year. The cost oI a mini tractor oI the company is Rs.
1.65 lakh. The company determines the market price oI its tractor on the basis oI
production cost. The state government provides subsidy oI Rs 30,000 to assist buyers
in purchasing mini tractors. The expected liIe oI the mini tractor is 12 to 15 years.

Sales, competition and market

The annual turnover oI the company is about Rs. 70 crore oI which, tractor business
contributes about Rs. 8 crores. The turnover continuously increased up to 2001 and
74
thereaIter declined till 2005, and aIter 2005, once again it is showing increasing trend.
The major reasons Ior declining trend were increasing diesel cost and raw material
cost, inadequate availability oI electricity and non-availability oI bank Iinance.
However, product diversiIication, introduction oI petrol start kerosene operated
engines and export are responsible Ior increasing trend aIter 2005.

The sale oI mini tractor is continuously increasing because it is economical and good
working product and it has virgin (emerging) market. The company sold 9 tractors in
2004-05, 136 tractors in 2005-06, 386 tractors in 2006-07, and is expected to sell 500
tractors during 2007-08.

The company has diversiIied its product because it wanted to get the beneIit oI excise
duty as there is no excise duty and taxes on the tractor below 10 HP capacities. The
rising demand Ior mini tractors was another reason Ior product diversiIication. So Iar
the Company has made changes in the shape oI mini tractor only.

Gujarat is the main market Ior the company`s mini tractors. All its sales are in Gujarat
only. But, the company exports its diesel engines to 28 countries worldwide and
recently, it got the Iirst order Irom South AIrica Ior the export oI mini tractors and
thus, has exported 8 tractors Ior the Iirst time. The company enjoys global
competitiveness in selling diesel engines mainly because oI its low cost and Iuel
eIIiciency. Export market contributes 20 oI its total sale.

It does not import parts or components Ior manuIacturing any oI its products. As such
there is no major competitor in selling mini tractors because oI virgin market.
However, Captain can be considered as its major market competitor. The company
does not supply its products to MNCs in India. No multinationals are selling mini
tractors in India. In Iact, there are only three mini tractor manuIacturers in India. The
company has 100 new buyers. Among these buyers, 70 purchased Ior the Iirst
time and the rest 30 are Iarmers who were already using or used large size tractors
beIore. The mini tractor is largely used Ior Iarm activities.

75
The company plans to introduce diIIerent capacities (15 HP and 20 HP) oI mini
tractors oI diIIerent versions to oIIer a range oI choice to Iarmers oI diIIerent
categories. It is also planning to expand its geographical spread in near Iuture.

Distribution and promotion
The company has 40 dealers in Gujarat and does not have a single dealer outside the
Gujarat. Depositing security money, capacity to pay advance payment, selling place
(shop/showroom) inIrastructure, RTO liaisoning and having mechanics are general
requirements oI the company to oIIer dealership.

The company provides one year warranty, during which it provides 4 Iree services or
services up to 600 hours use whichever takes place earlier. The company trains the
dealers` mechanics. Dealers provide aIter sale services to company`s customers and
dealers bear the service cost. The company does not provide credit Iacility to its
dealers. There is no minimum sale condition Ior its dealers. The company does not
Iace any problem Irom dealers/market or Iarmers.

The company participates in agri-Iares within the state only to promote its tractor sale.
Field demonstration, radio, news papers, pamphlets and wall paintings are major
media Ior the advertisement and promotion. The expenditure incurs on advertisement
and promotion varies Irom year to year depending on the proIit margin.

Captain Tractors Pvt. Ltd.

Captain Tractors, previously known as Asha Exim Pvt. Ltd, was established in 1994
by the Iarmer brothers Mr. G.T.Patel and Mr.M.T.Patel oI Rajkot. They initiated R&
D activities in 1994 with the aim oI introducing mini version oI tractor to bridge the
gap between large size tractors and bullock power use, especially targeting small and
marginal Iarmers and they came out with the Iirst indigenous prototype mini tractor
model in 1998. However, it was Iinally introduced in the market Ior commercial
selling in 2001 because oI a lengthy industrial licenses procedure and other Iormal
processing and government approvals.

76
Both the brothers have metric level education. They are the Iounders who were
producing Ilour mills/Ilour grinders beIore entering into the tractor business. Now,
Mr. M.T. Patel is the MD and Mr. G.T. Patel is the chairman oI the industry. It is a
Iamily owned and run industry. The Iactory works only a single shiIt geenrally. The
company has employed 45 people. OI them, 15 are technical persons, 4 non- technical
persons, 10 managers, and the rest 16 casual workers.

Product profile
The brand name oI the mini tractor is Captain, which means a leader, both the
brothers integrated their engineering skills with agriculture and thus wanted to be a
leader in manuIacturing mini tractors in India and hence they have chosen Captain as
a brand name. The company produces tractor Model No DI 2600 oI 9.5 HP with
single cylinder. It got CMFTTI Budni test report in 2001. NABARD approved the
product Ior bank Iinance in 2002. NABARD has adopted two major lending norms Ior
mini tractors; one, the Iarmers should have minimum 4 acres oI land; and two, the
credit period will be only 2-3 years. The product was Iormally included in the list oI
Ministry oI Agriculture, Government oI India as tractor under subsidy.

The product got approved under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), which
ensure vehicle perIormance and saIety. The tractor was also approved by Automotive
Research Association oI India (ARAI) Stage II & ARAI Stage III in 2006 and RTO
Ior its technical (especially emission) and operational aspects respectively. It also got
ISO 9001-2000 in 2006.

Besides mini tractors, the company is also producing tractor implements. There are 22
diIIerent types oI implements being produced at its manuIacturing unit which is
located at Rajkot in Gujarat. All implements are sold with the Captain brand only.
Though the company principally believes that the practice oI crop residue burning is
creating environmental pollution, it has not thought oI producing implement Ior the
solution oI crop residue burning.

The company assembles diIIerent components to produce the tractor at its
manuIacturing plant only. It produces 40 parts in-house and purchases 60 parts
and components Irom the market. It tries to use readily available parts and
77
components with no or little modiIications in designing its tractor rather then ordering
speciIic parts and components to Iits its design. It has about 40-50 suppliers. It
purchases the tractor diesel engine Irom PM Field Marshal which a competitor and
another player in market. The company has inIormal tie-up with about 10-15 SSI units
which produce diIIerent components oI the tractor according to the speciIications and
design oI the company. Apart Irom it, the company does not have any other type oI
collaboration with any other companies Ior technical or Iinancial support.

The company is continuously making changes in perIormance, hydraulic design
(technological) and appearance to make the product attractive and competitive in the
market. It does not provide tractor Iinance nor has it opened any Iinancial company to
assist buyers.

The market price oI its tractor is Rs. 2 lakh. The company determines the market price
oI its tractor based on the production cost and market competition. The state
government is providing subsidy oI Rs. 30,000 to Iirst time buyers irrespective oI
Iarmers` categories and castes. Average expected liIe oI the tractor is 15 years.

When the company produced the Iirst tractor its expected market price was Rs.
65,000. But as and when it moved towards the commercialization Ior producing mini
tractors, the cost gradually increased to Rs. 2 lakh. The Iormal industrial process
increased the market price oI mini tractors and widened the gap between introduction
oI the innovative product and its commercialized sale because oI heavy industrial
duties and taxes, licenses, and other processing Iormalities which all together are
mainly responsible Ior added cost. There is no proposal Ior other types oI small
tractors with the company.

Sales, competition and markets
Since its establishment, turnover oI the company is increasing with increasing sales.
The company`s tractor is competitive in the market because oI its lower price, Iuel
eIIiciency, (low Iuel consumption) and multiple Iunctional utility. The tractor sales
increased Irom 27 tractors in 2002-03 to 414 tractors in 2006-07 (table 3.4). Today,
the turnover oI the company is nearly Rs. 4 crore.

78
Table 3.4: Tractor sales by Captain (2002-03 to 2006-07)
Particulars 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
No. oI
Tractor sold
27 66 162 288 414

The mini tractors are in high demand which outstrips the production. The company
started producing one tractor in 4 days and today it has developed the capacity to
produce 4 tractors in a day. Overall, it can produce about 600 tractors in a year.
Nevertheless, the company does not able to keep pace with the growing market
demand.

The company has introduced only one model. It has 90-95 market in Gujarat and
only 5-10 market outside the Gujarat. The company has market distribution
network in eight states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal). The company is going to launch its
mini tractor in Tamil Nadu shortly. Uganda, Mozambique, Lampala and Morocco are
Iour countries where the company has its market distribution network.

In spite oI having international market distribution network, the company has not
exported its tractors so Iar nor does it import any parts or components. The company
management thinks that it does not have any major competitor in the market because
other two companies - PM Iield marshal and Trishul - have recently entered into the
manuIacturing oI mini tractors and both these companies copied Captain product. The
company management does not Ieel any threat about the global market oI mini
tractors and it does not supply its products to MNC in India. The company has 100
new buyers. At present, it does not Iace any marketing problem.

The company has made a business strategy to increase the production by 20-25
every year Ior the next Iive years and would review its sales and market plan at every
quarter to make necessary changes and take corrective measures.

Distribution and promotion
The company has about 15-20 dealers in Gujarat and 5-10 dealers outside Gujarat.
The company has Iollowing terms and conditions Ior dealership. Not only in India but
it has started in marketing operation in AIrican country as stated above.
79
Security deposit Ior minimum two tractors
Service station Iacility
Selling oIIice/showroom
2-3 mechanics

The company provides one year warranty period to its customers during which it
oIIers 4 Iree services up to one year or services up to 600 hours which ever is earlier.
Dealers provide aIter sale services, but the cost oI Iree services is born by the
company. The company trains the dealers` mechanics. The company does not provide
any credit instead it takes advance payment. On an average, it oIIers 5 dealer
margin. It has policy to appoint one dealer per district. It oIIers incremental selling
incentives to its dealers. The company does not Iace any problem Irom Iarmers,
markets and dealers. In Iact, its production does not match the rising demand.

The company participates in automotive exhibitions, agri-Iares, and local Iestivals to
promote its products. Personal visit to Iarmers, Iield demonstration and newspapers
are major advertisement media Ior the company. The company incurs about 10 oI
its sale on advertisement.

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 present a comparative picture oI the marketing strategies and
technical speciIications oI the mini tractors oI the two companies respectively.

Future of mini tractor industries

Future oI mini tractors is bright because oI various reasons such as increasing
Iinancial capability oI Iarmers, reducing Iamily size and Iarm plot size, increased
awareness among Iarmers, and Iarmers want to shiIt Irom bullock driven Iarming to
tractor driven Iarming to increase the eIIiciency in agriculture. The mini tractors have
the advantage oI Iunctional utility and multiple uses over power tillers. The other
reason is that Iarmers also want to minimize draIt power use in agriculture. The
company management Ieels that though the power tiller (PT) price is almost at par
with its mini tractor price, the mini tractor does not have competition with the power
80
tiller because power tiller has very limited Iunctional utility. Following are the major
reasons why PT being not considered as its competitor:
PT has no capacity to use all agricultural implements and attachments.
It is uncomIortable to drive the PT.
Power tiller is being operated on the pulling process, not on the riding process.
PT is not useIul Ior harvesting and other post-harvest operations.
PT is mainly useIul Ior inter-cultivation.
PT has 3.5 HP which is low capacity Ior a Iarm machine.
PT is petrol-start kerosene consuming machine and its Iuel consumption is
very high.























81
Table 3.5: Sales and marketing practices of mini tractor companies in Gujarat
Sr.
no.
Marketing
practices
Captain Tractors Pvt
Ltd.
P. M. DIESELS PVT.
LTD.
1 Annual turnover (Rs.)
OI the companies 70 crore
OI tractor section
4.0 crore
8.0 crore
2 Market price oI mini
tractor
2.0 lakh
1.65 lakh
3 Sales
2002-03 27 -
2003-04 66 -
2004-05 162 9
2005-06 288 136
2006-07 414 386
4 Major domestic market
In Gujarat 90-95 100
Outside Gujarat 5-10 0
5 Export market No export Sold 8 tractors in South AIrica
6 Major competitors Up to certain extent - Field
marshal
Captain brand
7 Buyers type
New buyers 100 100 (oI which, 30 are buyer
had/have large size tractors)
8 Dealers network
Within Gujarat 15-20 40
Outside Gujarat 5-10 0
9 Terms & conditions oI
dealership
Security deposit Ior 2
tractors
Service station Iacility
2-3 mechanics
Selling place
(oIIice/showroom)
Security deposit
Advance payment
Mechanics
Selling place
(oIIice/showroom)
Liaison with RTO
10 AIter sale service Dealer provides the service
4 Iree services up to one
year or up to 600 hours use
whichever takes place
earlier
Dealer provides the service
One year warranty or Iree
services up to 600 hours
use whichever takes place
earlier
11 Cost oI aIter sale service Company bears Dealers bear
12 Dealer margin 5 on MRP Business secret
13 Dealers jurisdiction One dealer per district No speciIication
14 Sale/promotional
activities
Participation in local
Iestivals. Participation in
Automotive exhibitions
Participation in agri-Iares
News paper
Personal visit oI Iarmers
Demonstration
Participation in agri-Iares
Radio
Pamphlet distribution
News paper
Field demonstration
Wall painting
15 Expenditure on
sale/promotional
activities as oI total
sale
10 Not Iixed, varies Irom year to
year depending on the annual
proIit





82
Table 3.6: Technical specifications of mini tractor of two companies in Gujarat
Sr.
no.
Technical
specifications
Captain Tractors P. M. Diesels
1 Weight
Without standard
ballast
825 kg 825 kg
2 Dimensions
Length 2440 mm 2430 mm
Width 1220 mm 1220 mm
Exhaust height 1670 mm 1850 mm
Wheel base 1700 mm 1700 mm
Ground clearance 260 mm 260 mm
Track width 975 mm (driving wheels) 975 mm (driving wheels)
Track width 1065 mm (steering wheels) 953 mm (steering wheels)
3 Engine
Make FM (HATZ design) FM (HATZ design)
Type Four stroke, direct injection
Horse power 11.8 HP (DIN 70020)/ 9.5
HP (CMVR)
11.5 HP (DIN 70020)/ 9.5 HP
(CMVR)
Bore/stroke 85/110 mm 85/110 mm
No. oI cylinders One One
Capacity 625 cc 625 cc
Engine rated speed 2600 rpm
Cooling system Air-cooled Air-cooled
Air cleaner Oil bath air cleaner with pre
cleaner
Oil bath air cleaner with pre
cleaner
Diesel consumption 1.0 Ltr./hour (approx.) 1.5 Ltr./hour (approx.)
4 Transmission
Clutch Dry, Iriction plate Dry, Iriction plate
Gear box Four Iorward high/low
One reverse/low
Four Iorward
One reverse
Foot brakes Internal expanding shoe type
mechanical brakes
Internal expanding shoe type
mechanical brakes
Parking brakes Pawl and ratchet type locking
arrangement
Pawl and ratchet type locking
arrangement
Steering Mechanical worm and peg
type
Mechanical worm and peg type
Minimum turning With brakes, 2.85 meters With brakes, 2.85 meters
Radius Without brakes, 3.85 meters Without brakes, 3.85 meters
5 Hydraulic system To operate three point
linkage and unload trailer
material
To operate three point linkage
and unload trailer material
Drive From engine through V` belt From engine through V` belt
Output oI hydraulic
pump
17.5 liters/min. 17.5 liters/min.
Transport lock Provided Provided
6 Three point
linkage
To attach various implements
like plough, cultivator,
harrow with provision liIting
and lowering implements
To attach various implements
like plough, cultivator, harrow
with provision liIting and
lowering implements
7 Trailer
Pay load 1.5 tonne 1.5 tonne
Trailer size 8 It x 5 It x 1 It (40 cu. Ft) 8 It x 5 It x 1 It (40 cu. Ft)
83
Tyre size 6.00 x 16 (8 ply) 6.00 x 16 (8 ply)
8 Tyres
Front 5.20 x 14 (8 ply) 5.20 x 14 (8 ply)
Rear 8.00 x 18 (4 ply) 8.00 x 18 (4 ply)
9 Road speed -
kmph

Gears Low High Low High
1 2.30 4.71 2.30 4.71
2 3.86 7.93 3.9 7.93
3 6.21 12.75 6.3 12.75
4 9.15 18.78 9.3 18.78
Reverse 1.72 3.53 1.7 3.53
11 Oil capacities
Diesel tank 16.0 ltr. 16.0 ltr.
Engine oil sump 1.6 ltr. 1.7 ltr.
Main gear box 1.6 ltr. 1.6 ltr.
Reduction gear box 1.75 ltr. 1.00 ltr.
DiIIerential 1.2 ltr. 1.2 ltr.
Steering box 0.5 ltr. 0.5 ltr.
Air cleaner 0.15 ltr. 0.25 ltr.
Hydraulic tank 14.0 ltr. 14.0 ltr.
12 Electrical system 12 v, 70 AH battery, solenoid
operated selI starter,
12 v, 70 AH battery, solenoid
operated selI starter,
12 v 40 A alternator, head
lamps, parking light, turning
light, hazard light, plough
light, brake light horn
12 v 40 A alternator, head
lamps, parking light, turning
light, hazard light, plough light,
brake light horn
13 Instruments RPM cum hour meter, oil
temp meter, battery charging
signal, head light/dipper
indicator, push button horn
RPM cum hour meter, oil temp
meter, battery charging signal,
head light/dipper indicator,
push button horn
14 operations
Plough 2 - Iurrow 2/3 piece
Cultivator 5 - tine 5 tine
Blade harrow 3 - Ieet 3 Ieet
Seed drill 5 - tine 5 tine
Water centriIugal
pump
2.5x 2.5 / 3.0x 2.5 2.5x 2.5
Pesticide sprayer 13 nozzle 6 nozzle
Thresher Mini Mini
Gen-set 7.5 k.v.a. 5 k.v.a.
Transportation 1.5 tonne 1.5 tonne
Reaper 11.5 acre/hour -
Rotary tiller 2.5 Ieet (16 tine) -
Note: The black grey shadow in the table indicates technical diIIerentiation between two
companies.





84
Chapter 4
Distribution and Marketing of Tractors: Dealer perspectives

We randomly selected 14 dealers Irom 6 districts oI Gujarat and 22 dealers Irom 10
districts oI Punjab under the study. Together, a total oI 36 dealers were selected
(Table-4.1) Irom three new companies viz., IndoIarm, Sonalika and Standard. OI the
total, IndoIarm, Sonalika and Standard constituted 11, 50 and 39 respectively.
This chapter examines the dealer level aspects oI tractor marketing in terms oI sales
volumes, sales promotions, purchase considerations oI Iarmers as dealers saw them
and company policies Iro dealers.

Table 4.1: State, district and company wise distribution of Tractor dealers
State District Indofarm Sonalika Standard All of total
Dealers
Gujarat Bharuch 1 1 2.78
Kheda 1 1 2.78
Surat 1 1 2.78
Anand 1 1 2 5.56
Himmatnagar 1 1 2 5.56
Kachchh 2 3 2 7 19.44
Sub-total 3 7 4 14 38.89
Punjab Jalandhar 1 1 2.78
Muksar 1 1 2.78
Nawashahar 1 1 2.78
Barnala 1 1 2 5.56
Ludhiana 1 1 2 5.56
Sangrur 2 2 5.56
Bhantinda 2 1 3 8.33
Fatehgarh Saheb 1 2 3 8.33
Mansa 1 2 3 8.33
Patiala 1 2 1 4 11.11
Sub-total 1 11 10 22 61.11
Total 4 (11.11) 18 (50.00) 14 (38.89) 36 100.00
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers

Dealer profile

Tractor dealers in Gujarat had higher level oI Iormal education than dealers in Punjab
though a higher proportion oI dealers in Punjab attained metric level and above school
85
education than their counterparts in Gujarat. Company wise, Standard dealers had
lower level oI Iormal education than IndoIarm and Sonalika dealers (Table 4.2).
Nearly 50 dealers oI IndoIarm and Sonalika had graduation and above level oI
education, but only 21 Standard dealers completed graduation. But standard dealers
had more technical level (diploma and ITI) education than other two company
dealers. In all, about 8 dealers attained below metric level education, 28 dealers
attained metric level education, 8 dealers attained higher secondary level education,
39 dealers attained graduation orabove level education, and 8 dealers attained
technical education (diploma or ITI). About 8 dealers did not have any Iormal
education.

Table 4.2: Educational qualification of the dealer by company and state
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Educational level
No. of dealers
Nil 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 2 (14.29) 1 (4.55) 3 (8.33)
Below metric 1 (5.56) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 1 (4.55) 3 (8.33)
Metric 1 (25.00) 4 (22.22) 5 (35.71) 1 (7.14) 9 (40.91) 10 (27.78)
12
th
Std 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 2 (9.09) 3 (8.33)
Graduation 2 (50.00) 6 (33.33) 3 (21.43) 5 (35.71) 6 (27.27) 11 (30.56)
ProIessional degree 3 (16.67) 1 (7.14) 2 (9.09) 3 (8.33)
Diploma 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 2 (14.29) 2 (5.56)
ITI 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers

Further, about 64 Gujarat dealers and 36 Punjab dealers did not have previous
experience in the tractor industry. About 21 Gujarat dealers had up to 10 years oI
previous experience and 14 oI its dealers had 21-40 years oI previous experience.
About 18 Punjab dealers had up to 10 years oI previous experience and 11 to 20
years oI previous experience each, and 27 between 21 and 40 years oI previous
experience. About 25 , 44 and 57 dealers oI IndoIarm, Sonalika and Standard,
respectively did not have previous experience in tractor industry. About 25
IndoIarm dealers had less than 5 years oI previous experience and 50 oI its dealers
had between 11 to 40 years oI experience. About 28 Sonalika dealers had up to 20
years oI previous experience and 21 to 40 years oI experience each. About 28.5 had
up to 20 years oI experience and the rest 14 had 21 to 40 years oI experience. In all,
about 44 dealers did not have any previous experience, 14 dealers had less than 5
86
years oI previous experience, 8 dealers 5 to 10 years oI experience, 11 11 to 20
years oI experience, and 22 dealers had 21-40 years experience (table 4.3).
Table 4.3: State and company wise previous experience of dealers in tractor
business
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Experience in Years
No. of dealers
None 1 (25.00) 8 (44.44) 8 (57.14) 9 (64.29) 8 (36.36) 16 (44.44)
5 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 2 (9.09) 5 (13.89)
5-10 2 (11.11) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 2 (9.09) 3 (8.33 )
11-20 1 (25.00) 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 4 (18.18) 4 (11.11)
21-40 1 (25.00) 5 (27.78) 2 (14.29) 2 (14.29) 6 (27.27) 8 (22.22)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers

In Gujarat, about 29 dealers did not have any other sources oI income, 14 dealers
had Iarm income, 43 Iarmers had non Iarm income, and 14 dealers had both Iarm
and non Iarm sources as other sources oI income. In Punjab, about 36 dealers did
not have any other sources oI income, 41 dealers had Iarm income, 14 dealers had
non Iarm income, and 9 dealers had both the sources as other sources oI income. A
higher proportion oI Gujarat dealers had their income Irom non Iarm sources unlike
Punjab dealers who had Iarm income as other income source. About 75 oI IndoIarm
dealers, 33 oI Sonalika dealers and 21 oI Standard dealers did not have any other
sources oI income. About 22 oI Sonalika and 50 oI Standard dealers had Iarm
income source. About 25 oI IndoIarm dealers, 39 oI Sonalika dealers and only 7
oI Standard dealers had non Iarm income sources. About 6 oI Sonalika dealers and
21 oI Standard dealers had both Iarm and non Iarm income sources. In all, about
33 dealers did not have any other sources oI income. Where as about 31 dealers
had Iarm income source, 25 dealers had non Iarm income sources and 11 dealers
had both Iarm and non-Iarm income sources (table 4.4).
Table: 4.4: Distribution of tractor dealers by company and state in terms of
other sources of income
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Source of income
No. of dealers
None 3(75.00) 6(33.33) 3(21.43) 4(28.57) 8(36.36) 12(33.33)
Farm 4(22.22) 7(50.00) 2(14.29) 9(40.91) 11(30.56)
Non-Farm* 1(25.00) 7(38.89) 1(7.14) 6(42.86) 3(13.64) 9(25.00)
Both 1(5.56) 3(21.43) 2(14.29) 2(9.09) 4(11.11)
Total 4(100) 18(100) 14(100) 14(100) 22(100) 36(100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers; Note: *Non-Iarm sources includes a range
oI business activities such as manuIacturing and selling oI agricultural implements, running hotel,
87
construction work, workshop, RTO agent, import-export oI ready made garments, scrap wholesaling
and Sheller.

As Iar as dealership experience oI present company is concerned, about 29 Gujarat
dealers and 9 Punjab dealers had less than one year oI dealership experience. About
57 Gujarat dealers and 64 Punjab dealers had 1- 5 years oI dealership experience.
About 14 Gujarat dealers and 27 Punjab dealers had 6-10 year to dealership
experience. About 17 oI Sonalika dealers and 21 oI Standard dealers had less than
one years oI dealership experience. All IndoIarm dealers had 1-5 years oI dealership
experience. About 39 oI Sonalika dealers and 79 oI Standard dealers had 1 to 5
years oI dealership experience. About 57 oI Sonalika dealers had 6 to 10 years oI
dealership experience. In all, about 17 dealers had less than one years oI dealership
experience, maximum numbers oI dealers (about 61) had a short span oI dealership
experience between 1 to 5 years and about 22 dealers had 6 to 10 years oI
dealership experience (table 4.5).

But, very small proportion oI the dealers had experience oI being dealers oI any other
tractor company. In Gujarat, about 86 dealers did not have dealership experience oI
other companies, 7 dealers each had 1 to 5 years and more than 5 years oI
dealership experience oI other companies. In Punjab, 64 dealers did not have
dealership experience oI other companies and 18 dealers each had 1 to 5 years oI
dealership experience and more than 5 years oI dealership experience oI other
companies. About 50 IndoIarm dealers, 67 Sonalika dealers and 86 Standard
dealers did not have dealership experience oI other companies. About 50 IndoIarm
dealers and 17 Sonalika dealers had 1 to 5 years oI dealership experience oI other
companies. About 17 Sonalika dealers and 14 Standard dealers had more than 5
years oI dealership experience oI other companies. In all, majority (about 71)
dealers did not have dealership experience oI other companies. However, about 14
oI dealers each had dealership oI other companies Ior less than 5 years and Ior more
than 5 years (table 4.6).






88
Table: 4.5: State and company wise duration of tractor dealership
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Dealership exp. (years)
No. of dealers
1 3(16.67) 3(21.43) 4(28.57) 2(9.09) 6(16.67)
1-5 4(100) 7(38.89) 11(78.57) 8(57.14) 14(63.64) 22(61.11)
6-10 8(57.14) 2(14.29) 6(27.27) 8(22.22)
Total 4(100) 18(100) 14(100) 14(100) 22(100) 36(100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers

Table: 4.6: State and company wise distribution of dealers by experience of
dealership of other companies
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Dealership exp. (years)
No. of dealers
None 2(50.00) 12(66.67) 12(85.71) 12(85.71) 14(63.64) 26(72.22)
1-5 2(50.00) 3(16.67) 1(7.14) 4(18.18) 5(13.89)
~ 5 (up to 32) 3(16.67) 2(14.29) 1(7.14) 4(18.18) 5(13.89)
Total 4(100) 18(100) 14(100) 14(100) 22(100) 36(100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers. About 28 dealers had prior dealership
experience oI other companies such as Standard, Hindustan, Massey, Eicher, Pratap, Escort and
Swaraj.

Sales and Marketing

About 86 Gujarat dealers and 64 Punjab dealers had one sales outlet each, 7
Gujarat dealers and 27 Punjab dealers had two sales outlets each, and 7 Gujarat
dealers, and 9 Punjab dealers had three sales outlets. All IndoIarm dealers, 50
Sonalika dealers, and 93 Standard dealers had only one sales outlet. About 33
Sonalika dealers and 7 Standard dealers had two sales outlets. 17 Sonalika dealers
had three sales outlets. In all, about 72 dealers possessed one sales outlet, 19
dealers possessed two sales outlets and only 8 dealers possessed three sales outlets
(table 4.7).

Table: 4.7: Distribution of dealers by number of sales outlets- company and
state-wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Number of outlets
No. of dealers
One 4(100) 9(50.00) 13(92.86) 12(85.71) 14(63.64) 26(72.22)
Two 6(33.33) 1(7.14) 1(7.14) 6(27.27) 7(19.44)
Three 3(16.67) 1(7.14) 2(9.09) 3(8.33)
Total 4(100) 18(100) 14(100) 14(100) 22(100) 36(100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.

89
About 57 Gujarat dealers and 73 Punjab dealers were selling up to 5 tractors per
month. About 29 Gujarat dealers and 27 Punjab dealers were selling 6 to 10
tractors per month. About 7 Gujarat dealers each (one dealer each) were selling 11
to 15 tractors and 16 to 20 tractors per month. About 75 IndoIarm dealers, 44
Sonalika dealers and 93 Standard dealers were selling up to 5 tractors per month.
About 25 IndoIarm dealers, 44 Sonalika dealers and 7 Standard dealers were
selling 6 to 10 tractors per month. About 11 Sonalika dealers were selling 11 to 20
tractors per month. In all, about 67 dealers were selling up to 5 tractors per month,
28 dealers were selling 6 to 10 tractors per month and the rest 5 dealers were
selling 11 to 20 tractors per month (table 4.8).

About 57 Gujarat dealers and 91 Punjab dealers had a monthly sale up to 5
tractors per outlet. About 36 Gujarat dealers and 9 Punjab dealers had a monthly
sale between 6 and 10 tractors per outlet. Only 7 Gujarat dealers had a monthly sale
between 16 and 20 tractors per outlet. About 75 IndoIarm dealers, 67 Sonalika
dealers and 93 Standard dealers had a monthly sale up to 5 tractors per outlet. About
25 IndoIarm dealers, 28 Sonalika dealers and 7 Standard dealers had a monthly
sale between 6 and 10 tractors per outlet. Only 6 Sonalika dealers had a monthly
sale between 16 and 20 tractors per outlet. In all, about 78 dealers had a monthly
sale up to 5 tractors per outlet, 19 dealers had a monthly sale between 5 to 10
tractors per outlet, and only 3 dealers had a monthly sale between 16 and 20 tractors
per outlet (table 4.9).

Table: 4.8: State and company wise distribution of dealers by monthly sales of
tractors
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Sale
(no. of tractors)
No. of dealers
_ 5 3 (75.00) 8 (44.44) 13 (92.86) 8 (57.14) 16 (72.73) 24 (66.67)
6-10 1 (25.00) 8 (44.44) 1 (7.14) 4 (28.57) 6 (27.27) 10 (27.78)
11-15 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (2.78)
16-20 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.




90
Table 4.9: State and company wise distribution of dealers by monthly sales of
tractors per outlet
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Sale
(no. of tractors)
No. of dealers
_ 5 3 (75.00) 12 (66.67) 13 (92.86) 8 (57.14) 20 (90.91) 28 (77.78)
6-10 1 (25.00) 5 (27.78) 1 (7.14) 5 (35.71) 2 (9.09) 7 (19.44)
11-15 - - - - - -
16-20 - 1 (5.56) - 1 (7.14) - 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.

In Gujarat, only 7 dealers did not Iace any local level market competition as they
did not have any other companies` sales outlet in their area oI operation. While about
14 Gujarat dealers and 32 Punjab dealers Iaced competition Irom 1 to 5 outlets,
36 Gujarat dealers and 55 Punjab dealers Iaced competition Irom 6 to 10 outlets,
29 Gujarat dealers and 14 Punjab dealers Iaced competition Irom 11 to 15 outlets,
and only 14 Gujarat dealers Iaced competition Irom more than 15 outlets oI other
companies in their area oI operation. Only about 6 Sonalika dealers did not Iace any
local level market competition. While about 25 IndoIarm dealers, 17 Sonalika
dealers and 36 Standard dealers Iaced competition Irom 1 to 5 outlets oI other
companies. About 25 IndoIarm dealers, 50 Sonalika dealers and 50 Standard
dealers Iaced competition Irom 6 to 10 outlets oI other companies. About 25
IndoIarm dealers, 22 Sonalika dealers and 14 Standard dealers Iaced competition
Irom 11 to 15 outlets oI other companies. About 25 IndoIarm dealers and 6
Sonalika dealers Iaced competition Irom more than 15 outlets oI other companies. In
all, only 3 dealers did not Iace market competition, 25 dealers Iaced competition
Irom 1 to 5 outlets, 47 dealers Iace competition Irom 6 to10 outlets, 19 dealers
Iaced competition Irom 11 to 15 outlets, and only 6 dealers Iaced competition Irom
more than 15 outlets oI other companies in their area oI operation (table 4.10).
Table 4.10: State and company wise distribution of dealers by the number of
competitors` outlets in the area
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Outlets
(numbers)
No. of dealers
0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (2.78)
1-5 1 (25.00) 3 (16.67) 5 (35.71) 2 (14.29) 7 (31.82) 9 (25.00)
6-10 1 (25.00) 9 (50.00) 7 (50.00) 5 (35.71) 12 (54.55) 17 (47.22)
11-15 1 (25.00) 4 (22.22) 2 (14.29) 4 (28.57) 3 (13.64) 7 (19.44)
~ 15 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 2 (14.29) 2 (5.56)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.
91

In Gujarat, about 86 dealers oIIered toolkit, service kit and Iilter kit and 14
dealers oIIered other things besides toolkit, service kit and Iilter kit to Iarmers when
they purchase tractor. Other things include hood, bumper, 20 ltr oil, etc. In Punjab,
about 18 dealers oIIered tool kit and service kit, and the rest 82 dealers oIIered
toolkit, service kit and Iilter kit to Iarmers when they purchased tractor. About 29
Standard dealers oIIered toolkit and service kit; about 75 IndoIarm dealers, 94
Sonalika dealers and 71 Standard dealers oIIered toolkit, service kit and Iilter kit;
and about 25 IndoIarm dealers and 6 Sonalika dealers oIIered tool kit , service kit,
Iilter kit and other things to Iarmers when they purchase tractor. In all, about 11
dealers oIIered tool kit and service kit; 83 dealers oIIered toolkit, service kit and
Iilter kit; and 6 dealers oIIered toolkit, service kit, Iilter kit and other things (table
4.11).

Warranty period oIIered to their customers diIIered across companies and dealers. All
Gujarat dealers provided one year warranty, while 45 Punjab dealers provided one
year warranty. In Punjab, 41 dealers provided 1.5 years warranty and 14 gave 2
year warranty. All IndoIarm dealers, 56 Sonalika dealers and 71 Standard dealers
provided one year warranty. About 33 Sonalika dealers and 21 Standard dealers
provided 1.5 years warranty; and 11 Sonalika dealers and 7 standard dealers
provided 2 year warranty. In all, about 67 dealers provided one year warranty, 25
1.5 years warranty and 8 gave two year warranty (table 4.12).

Table 4.11: Company and state-wise distribution of dealers by incentives offered
to farmers by dealers at the time of purchase
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Dealers provide
No. of dealers
Tool kit and service kit 4(28.57) 4(18.18) 4(11.11)
Tool kit , service kit
and Iilter kit
3(75.00) 17(94.44) 10(71.43) 12(85.71) 18(81.82) 30(83.33)
Tool kit , service kit,
Iilter kit and others*
1(25.00) 1(5.56) 2(14.29) 2(5.56)
Total 4(100) 18(100) 14(100) 14(100) 22(100) 36(100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.
*Others include hood, bumper, 20 ltr oil, etc.




92
Table 4.12: Company and state-wise distribution of dealers by after sales services
(warranty) offered
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Warranty period
(years)
No. of dealers
1 4 (100) 10 (55.56) 10(71.43) 14 (100) 10(45.45) 24(66.67)
1.5 6 (33.33) 3 (21.43) 9 (40.91) 9 (25.00)
2 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 3 (13.64) 3 (8.33)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Figures in brackets show percentage oI total sample dealers.

A majority oI the dealers had invested only upto Rs. 5 lakh in the business as Iixed
investment with an equal proportion (25 each) investing rs. 5-10 lakh and more than
Rs. 10 lakh. And even upto Rs. 1.5 crores. The Iixed investment was relatively higher
in Gujarat than that in Punjab. IndoIarm and Standard dealers had to invest less
compared to Sonalika dealers. Sonalika dealers have invested up to Rs. 1.5 crores
while IndoIarm and Standard dealers have invested up to Rs. 20 lakh (table 4.13).
About 14 dealers required more than one lakh rupees working capital. Among them,
except one dealer who required Rs. 8 lakh as working capital, all other dealers
required Rs. 1-1.5 lakh Ior working capital. In Gujarat, about 1/3
rd
dealers had
working capital investment oI the order oI Rs. one lakh or more. Across companies,
standard had the lowest working capital requirement (table 4.14).

Table 4.13: State and company wise distribution of dealers by their fixed
investment
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Investment
(lakh rupees)
No. of dealers
up to 5 2 (50.00) 9 (50.00) 7 (50.00) 4 (28.57) 14 (63.64) 18 (50.00)
5.1-10 .0 1 (25.00) 2 (11.11) 6 (42.86) 5 (35.71) 4 (18.18) 9 (25.00)
~ 10.00 1 (25.00) 7 (38.89) 1 (7.14) 5 (35.71) 4 (18.18) 9 (25.00)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)

Table 4.14: State and company wise distribution of dealers by their working
capital investment
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Investment
(000` rupees)
No. of dealers
Up to 25.0 1 (25.00) 4 (22.22) 10 (71.43) 3 (21.43) 12 (54.55) 15 (41.67)
25.1-50.0 1 (25.00) 5 (27.78) 3 (21.43) 3 (21.43) 6 (27.27) 9 (25.00)
50.1-100.0 1 (25.00) 6 (33.33) 3 (21.43) 4 (18.18) 7 (19.44)
~ 100.0 1 (25.00) 3 (16.67) 1 (7.14) 5 (35.71) 5 (13.89)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)

93
Buyer consideration in tractor purchase- dealer perceptions

The horsepower oI the tractor was the major consideration in purchase oI tractor
Iollowed by Iuel eIIiciency and aIter sales service in that order. But, in Punjab, there
were other Iactors like Iile cooling, number oI cylinders, colour & appearance,
hydraulic changes, double clutch, powerIul liIt, special gear, can work with rotovator.
N Iact, there are special Ieatures which are required in a matured market like Punjab.
Another major Iactor which emerged across analysis oI companies was market value
or resale value oI the tractor in the case oI IndoIarm (table 4.15). what comes out
clearly Irom table 4.16 is that Iarmers/buyers look Ior multiple aspects in tractor while
making a purchase. ThereIore, it is not just horse power but other Ieatures as well as
resale value which are equally important.

Terms and conditions of dealership

The single most important condition Ior dealership across companies and states was
security money Iollowed by working capital Ior setting up a show room and
manpower to manage it (tables 4.17 and 4.18) though security deposit required both
Ior tractors as well spare parts was not very high (table 4.19and 4.20).

Table 4.15: State and company wise distribution of dealers by buyer
considerations in tractor purchase
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Customers`
requirements
No. of dealers
HP
4 (100) 17 (97.44) 14 (100) 14 (100) 21
(95.45)
35
(97.22)
Fuel/oil eIIiciency
4 (100) 14 (77.78) 5 (35.71) 12
(85.71)
11
(50.00)
23
(63.89)
Good service
4 (100) 9 (50.00) 0 9
(64.29)
4
(18.18)
13
(36.11)
Market value
2 (50.00) 4 (22.22) 0 5
(35.71)
1
(4.55)
6
(16.67)
Price
0 1 (5.56) 3 (21.43) 3
(21.43)
1
(4.55)
4
(11.11)
Others
0 8 (44.44) 9 (64.29) 5
(35.71)
12
(54.55)
17
(47.22)



94
Dealer support by company

About 22 dealers received credit Ior 15-90 days Irom the company. Only one dealer
received cash credit oI Rs. 50 Lakh and one another dealer received credit linked with
his bank limit. All other dealers received credit per tractor (table 4.21). About 89
dealers received the service oI company`s mechanics, especially to solve the big
problems. Only 8 dealers were receiving regular visit oI company`s mechanics
either on Iortnightly or bi-monthly basis. Only one dealer oI Standard company was
receiving payment Ior his Ioreman Irom the company. About 89 dealers received
training Ior their mechanics Irom their respective companies (table 4.22).

Table 4.16: Dealer perception of buyer criteria to buy a tractor
Company State
Indofarm Sonalik
a
Standar
d
Gujarat Punja
b
All Customers requirements
No. of dealers
HP and others* 0 3 (16.67) 8 (57.14) 1 (7.14) 10
(45.45)
11
(30.56)
HP, good service and Iuel/oil eIIiciency 2 (50.00) 4 (22.22) 0 3 (21.43) 3 (13.64) 6
(16.67)
HP and Iuel/oil eIIiciency 0 4 (22.22) 1 (7.14) 0 5 (22.73) 5
(13.89)
HP, good service, Iuel/oil eIIiciency
and market value
2 (50.00) 1 (5.56) 0 2 (14.29) 1 (4.55) 3 (8.33)
HP, good service, Iuel/oil eIIiciency,
Market value and others*
0 0 0 3 (21.43) 0 3 (8.33)
HP, Iuel/oil eIIiciency, price 0 3 (16.67) 0 3 (21.43) 0 3 (8.33)
HP 1 (4.55) 1 (2.78)
HP and good service 3 (21.43) 1 (7.14) 1 (2.78)
HP, Iuel/oil eIIiciency and others* 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 2 (5.56)
Fuel/oil eIIiciency, price and others* 1 (5.56) 1 (4.55) 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
*Others include Iile cooling, number oI cylinders, colour & appearance, hydraulic changes, double clutch, powerIul liIt, special
gear, can work with rotovator. Number oI cylinder is a major requirement among other requirements.















95
Table 4.17: Distribution of dealers by terms of dealership- state and company
wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Requirements
No. of dealers
Security money 4 (100) 16 (88.89) 13
(92.86)
14 (100) 19
(86.36)
33
(91.67)
Show room 3 (75.00) 16 (88.89) 11
(78.57)
10
(71.43)
20
(90.91)
30
(83.33)
Manpower 3 (75.00) 16 (88.89) 7 (50.00) 11
(78.57)
15
(68.18)
26
(72.22)
Experience 0 1 (5.56) 0 0 1
(4.55)
1
(2.78)
Working capital 0 1 (5.56) 0 0 1
(4.55)
1
(2.78)
Spare parts security 0 4 (22.22) 5 (35.71) 2
(14.29)
7
(31.82)
9
(25.00)
Workshop 0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 2
(14.29)
0 2
(5.56)
Advance tractor purchase/payment* 0 1 (5.56) 5 (35.71) 3
(21.43)
3
(13.64)
6
(16.67)
*About 17 dealers had to purchase two to Iive tractors in advance.




























96
Table 4.18: Distribution of dealers by requirements to acquire dealership- state
and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Requirements
No. of dealers
Security money, show room
and manpower
3 (75.00) 9 (50.00) 2 (14.29) 6 (42.86) 8 (36.36) 14
(38.89)
Security money, show room,
man power and spare parts security
0 3 (16.67) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 3 (13.64) 4
(11.11)
Security money and show room 0 2 (14.29) 2 (9.09) 2
(5.56)
Security money, show room,
man power and advance tractor purchase
0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 2
(5.56)
Security money and spare parts security 0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 2
(5.56)
Show room and manpower 0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 2
(5.56)
Security money 1 (25.00) 0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1
(2.78)
Show room 0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
Security money, show room,
man power, spare parts security
and advance tractor purchase
0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
Security money, show room,
man power and workshop
0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1
(2.78)
Security money, show room
and spare parts security
0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
Security money, show room,
spare parts security and
advance tractor purchase
0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
Security money and man power 0 1 (5.56) 0 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
Security money, man power,
workshop and advance tractor purchase
0 0 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 1
(2.78)
Security money and advance tractor purchase 0 0 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 1
(2.78)
Show room, experience and working capital 0 1 (5.56) 0 0 1 (4.55) 1
(2.78)
All
4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36
(100)













97
Table 4.19: Distribution of dealers by amount of security money paid to acquire
dealer ship (state and company wise)
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Security money
(Rs,. In Lakh))
No. of dealers
None 0 2 (11.11) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 3
(13.64)
4
(11.11)
Amount not given 0 3 (16.67) 2 (14.29) 2
(14.29)
3
(13.64)
5
(13.89)
Up to 1.0 3 (75.00) 7 (38.89) 8 (57.14) 6
(42.86)
12
(54.55)
18
(50.00)
1.1-3.0 1 (25.00) 4 (22.22) 1 (7.14) 3
(21.43)
3
(13.64)
6
(16.67)
3.1-12.0 0 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 2
(14.29)
1 (4.55) 3 (8.33)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22
(100)
36
(100)

Table 4.20: Distribution of dealers by security money paid for spare parts - state
and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Security money for spare parts (Rupees)
No. of dealers
None 4 14 9 12
(85.71)
15
(68.18)
27
(75.00)
50,000 0 1 0 1 (7.14) 0 1
(2.78)
60,000 0 2 5 1 (7.14) 6
(27.27)
7
(19.44)
2 lakhs 0 1 0 0 1
(4.55)
1
(2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22
(100)
36
(100)


Table 4.21: Distribution of dealers by credit facility provided - state and
company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Credit
No. of dealers
Not received 0 16 12 10
(71.43)
18
(81.82)
28
(77.78)
Received 4 2 2 4 (28.57) 4 (18.18) 8 (22.22)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Credit period
Days 30-90 15-45 15 30-90 15-30 15-90



98
Table 4.22: Distribution of dealers by type of assistance provided - state and
company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Assistance/services
No. of dealers
Provide mechanic 4 (100) 17 (94.44) 11
(78.57)
12
(85.71)
20
(90.91)
32
(88.89)
Payment to dealers` mechanics 0 0 1 (7.14) 0 1
(4.55)
1
(2.78)
Training to dealers` mechanics 4 (100) 18 (100) 10
(71.43)
13
(92.86)
19
(86.36)
32
(88.89)
Training period (days) 15 5-10 10-30 5-16 5-30 5-30

Only Indo Iarm dealers Iound their terms and conditions somewhat better than the
competition in term oI dealer credit and no undue pressure to sell. But, dealers mostly
Iound that on various counts, dealer terms and conditions were similar across
companies (table 4.23 and 4.24).

Table 4.23: Distribution of dealers by comparative picture of company`s dealer
terms and conditions vis--vis competitors-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Dealers T&C
No. of dealers
Better 2 (50.00) 3 (16.67) 2 (14.29) 4
(28.57)
3 (13.64) 7 (19.44)
Common 2 (50.00) 3 (16.67) 1 (7.14) 6
(42.86)
0 6 (16.67)
No diIIerence 0 12 (66.67) 8 (57.14) 2
(14.29)
18
(81.82)
20
(55.56)
Competitive 0 0 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 1 (4.55) 2 (5.56)
No response 0 0 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
Table 4.24: Distribution of dealers by reasons for better terms and conditions-
state and company wise
Company State All
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
Reasons for better T&C
No. of dealers
Company gives credit 1 0 0 1 0 1
No or low pressure 1 1 2 1 3 4
Good service 0 1 0 1 0 1
Company does not take risk 0 1 0 1 0 1
Total 2 3 2 4 3 7

In general, margins were somewhat higher in case oI IndoIarm and also higher in
Gujarat than in Punjab as Gujarat was being penetrated as a new market (table 4.25).


99
Table 4.25: Distribution of dealers by dealer margin-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Dealer Margin (Rs. 000)
No. of dealers
No response 0 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 0 2
(9.09)
2
(5.56)
up to 10.0 0 5 (27.78) 3 (21.43) 0 8
(36.36)
8
(22.22)
10.1-15.0 1 (25.00) 5 (27.78) 2 (14.29) 2
(14.29)
6
(27.27)
8
(22.22)
15.0-20.0 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 2
(14.29)
1
(4.55)
3
(8.33)
20.1-25.0 0 4 (22.22) 3 (21.43) 5
(35.71)
2
(9.09)
7
(19.44)
25.1-30.0 1 (25.00) 0 2 (14.29) 2
(14.29)
1
(4.55)
3
(8.33)
30.1-35.0 0 2 (11.11) 0 1 (7.14) 1
(4.55)
2
(5.56)
~ 35 (up to 100) 1 (25.00) 0 2 (14.29) 2
(14.29)
1
(4.55)
3
(8.33)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22
(100)
36
(100)
.

Almost 50 dealers reported dealer Iocused as well as Iarmer Iocused schemes across
states and companies except Standard (table 4.26 and 4.27). The Iarmer Iocused
schems were more generally available in Gujarat than in Punjab. DiIIerent companies
oIIered diIIerent types oI incentive schemes to increase tractor sale. Cash discount
was the most common incentive scheme oIIered to dealers; however, Indo-Iarm and
Sonalika oIIered two wheeler and Iour wheeler giIt, and Ioreign trip to increase tractor
sale. No company oIIered Iarmer Iocused scheme but dealers oIIered cash discount to
their customers.

Table 4.26: Distribution of dealers by dealer focused scheme offered by
companies-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Scheme offered
No. of dealers
Yes 2 (50.00) 14 (77.78) 1 (7.14) 7
(50.00)
10
(45.45)
17
(47.22)
No 2 (50.00) 4 (22.22) 12
(85.71)
6
(42.86)
12
(54.55)
18
(50.00)
No response 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36
(100)
100


Table 4.27: Distribution of dealers by farmer focused scheme offered by dealers
-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Scheme offered
No. of dealers
Yes 2 (50.00) 10 (55.56) 4 (28.57) 10
(71.43)
6
(27.27)
16
(44.44)
No 2 (50.00) 8 (44.44) 9 (64.29) 3
(21.43)
16
(72.73)
19
(52.78)
no response 0 0 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 0 1 (2.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36
(100)

Company wise dealer perspective on company specific unique selling
propositions (USPs) of tractor brands

Indofarm: Jeko engine, more length, oil eIIiciency, 1
st
rotary pump, Uro type rotary
pump, and appearance.

Sonalika: big tray, smokeless, Hi-tech hydraulic, more work, special Ior rotavator,
more height, appearance, colour, oil eIIiciency, low pollution, eco Iriendly, pto, two
gear Ior pto, reverse pto gear, double pto, side gear, heavy duty, power, powerIul
engine, low maintenance, , price, resale value, success with special cultivator, and
Uro-3.

Standard: better Ior combine, second high utility gear, extra gear, reverse gear in top
gear possible(good gear box), special cultivator gear, 2
nd
cultivator gear, low oil
consumption, Iuel eIIicient, oil eIIiciency, 3 term engine, diIIerent clutch plate, strong
tractor, Iree chatri, higher height, power steering (Iull turn in less space), easy Ior liIt,
and heavy duty.

A majority oI dealers were oI the view that tractor is not a status symbol with only 1/3
conIirming it as a status symbol. But, across states, in Gujarat, it was considered to be
status symbol in some measure as the tractor density is lower than that in Punjab
which is densely populated by tractors. Across companies, Sonalika and Standard had
somewhat higher perception oI being status symbols than that by IndoIarm (Table
101
4.28). So Iar as perception oI dealers about the liIe span oI a tractor was concerned, it
was in general perceived to be 5-10 years and more so in Gujarat. Surprisingly,
Punjab dealers viewed the tractor to have even a liIe oI 16-20 years. But, in terms oI
across company analysis, it was more or les same with 50 dealers perceiving it to be
5-10 years (Table 4.29).

Table 4.28: Distribution of dealers by their perception of tractor as a status
symbol for farmers-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Status symbol
No. of dealers
Yes 2 (50.00) 6 (33.33) 4 (28.57) 6
(42.86)
6 (27.27) 12
(33.33)
No 2 (50.00) 12 (66.67) 10
(71.43)
8
(57.14)
16
(72.73)
24
(66.67)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)

Promotion of tractors by dealers

The most commonly used promotional tool was demonstration Iollowed by
distribution oI pamphlets and printed material as personalized promotion and
newspapers and magazines as the mass media. Sonalika Iocused more on
demonstrations against other companies (Table 4.30 and 4.31). The promotional
expenses were either shared between company and dealer or wholly borne by dealers
(Table 4.32).

Table 4.29: Distribution of dealers by their perception of life of tractor - state
and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Life
(in years)
No. of dealers
5-10 2 (50.00) 10 (55.56) 8 (57.14) 13
(92.86)
7 (31.82) 20
(55.56)
11-15 0 5 (27.78) 1 (7.14) 0 6 (27.27) 6 (16.67)
16-20 1 (25.00) 2 (11.11) 1 (7.14) 0 4 (18.18) 4 (11.11)
Depends on the Iarmer 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 4 (28.57) 1 (7.14) 5 (22.73) 6 (16.67)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)






102
Table 4.30: Distribution of dealers by promotion tools used -state and company
wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Mode of advertisement
No. of dealers
Demonstration* 2 (50.00) 13 (72.22) 6 (42.86) 10
(71.43)
11
(50.00)
21
(58.33)
Distribution oI printed literature
such as pamphlets and handouts
2 (50.00) 5 (27.78) 4 (28.57) 4 (28.57) 7 (31.82) 11
(30.56)
News papers/Magazines 1 (25.00) 3 (16.67) 2 (14.29) 4 (28.57) 2 (9.09) 6
(16.67)
Wall painting 1 (25.00) 1 (7.14) 1
(2.78)
TV 1 (5.56) 1 (7.14) 1
(2.78)
Fare demonstration 2 (11.11) 4 (28.57) 6 (27.27) 6
(16.67)
Others ** 3 (16.67) 4 (28.57) 4 (28.57) 3 (13.64) 7
(19.44)
* There are diIIerent methods oI demonstration such as Iarm demo, stall demo, and
village show.
** Other methods include personal contact, spread oI inIormation through local
mechanics, Iree trial, stall, and road show.






























1
0
3

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
3
1
:

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

b
y

a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

u
s
e
d
-
s
t
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

w
i
s
e

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

S
t
a
t
e

I
n
d
o
f
a
r
m

S
o
n
a
l
i
k
a

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


M
o
d
e

o
f

a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t

N
o
.

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

N
o
n
e


1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

3

(
2
1
.
4
3
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

3

(
1
3
.
6
4
)

5

(
1
3
.
8
9
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

2

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

3

(
1
3
.
6
4
)

4

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

6

(
3
3
.
3
3
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

3

(
2
1
.
4
3
)

6

(
2
7
.
2
7
)

9

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e


0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

0

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

F
a
r
e

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

0

2

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

3

(
1
3
.
6
4
)

3

(
8
.
3
3
)

N
e
w
s

p
a
p
e
r
s
/
M
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s

0


1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,


a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s


0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

2

(
5
.
5
6
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e


a
n
d

n
e
w
s

p
a
p
e
r
s
/
m
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s

0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r
s


0

2

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

3

(
2
1
.
4
3
)

0

3

(
8
.
3
3
)

D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

N
e
w
s

p
a
p
e
r
s
/
m
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s

0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

2

(
5
.
5
6
)

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

N
e
w
s

p
a
p
e
r
s
/
m
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s
,


a
n
d

w
a
l
l

p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g


1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

F
a
r
e

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
I

p
r
i
n
t
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

F
a
r
e

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n


a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

T
V

a
n
d

N
e
w
s

p
a
p
e
r
s
/
M
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s

0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

F
a
r
e

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

T
o
t
a
l


4

(
1
0
0
)

1
8

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

2
2

(
1
0
0
)

3
6

(
1
0
0
)



1
0
4

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
3
2
:

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

b
y

s
o
u
r
c
e

o
f

a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t

f
u
n
d
s
-

s
t
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

w
i
s
e

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

S
t
a
t
e

I
n
d
o
f
a
r
m

S
o
n
a
l
i
k
a

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


B
e
a
r
e
r

o
f

a
d
v
.

E
x
p

N
o
.

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

D
e
a
l
e
r
s

1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

5

(
2
7
.
7
8
)

8

(
5
7
.
1
4
)

4

(
2
8
.
5
7
)

1
0

(
4
5
.
4
5
)

1
4

(
3
8
.
8
9
)

D
e
a
l
e
r

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

o
n

5
0
:
5
0

b
a
s
i
s

2

(
5
0
.
0
0
)

1
0

(
5
5
.
5
6
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

4

(
2
8
.
5
7
)

9

(
4
0
.
9
1
)

1
3

(
3
6
.
1
1
)

D
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e
l
y

s
h
a
r
e
d

b
y

d
e
a
l
e
r

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y


0

0

3

(
2
1
.
4
3
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

3

(
8
.
3
3
)

N
o
n
e

1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

3

(
1
6
.
6
7
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

4

(
2
8
.
5
7
)

2

(
9
.
0
9
)

6

(
1
6
.
6
7
)

T
o
t
a
l

4

(
1
0
0
)

1
8

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

2
2

(
1
0
0
)

3
6

(
1
0
0
)


105
Interestingly, the dealers were oI the view that advertisements inIluenced Iarmer
behaviour signiIicantly. This was true in both the states and across all the three
companies (table 4.33).

Table 4.33: Distribution of dealers by influence of advertisement on farmer
behaviour-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Influence
No. of dealers
Yes 4 (100) 12 (66.67) 10 (71.43) 10 (71.43) 16 (72.73) 26 (72.22)
No 0 6 (33.33) 4 (28.57) 4 (28.57) 6 (27.27) 10 (27.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)
About 25 dealers said that advertisement inIluences sale by 20 to 50.

Financial tie-up and costs involved
All the dealers except 5 had single or multiple bank tie up Ior tractor loans arranged
by the respective companies. But, SBI emerged as the single largest bank Ior such tie
ups due to its overwhelming presence in the rural areas (Table 4.34). Majority oI the
dealers spent within Rs. 5,000 Ior arranging a tractor loan Ior the Iarmer (table 4.35).
2/3 oI the dealers had bank limit Ior working capital and more so in Gujarat (table
4.36)
Table 4.34: Distribution of dealers by formal tie-up with banks-state and
company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Tie-up banks
No. of dealers
SBI
- 12 (66.67) 10
(71.43)
1 (7.14) 21
(95.45)
22
(61.11)
Dena Bank
- - 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) - 1
(2.78)
SBI, BoB
- 2 (11.11) - 2
(14.29)
- 2
(5.56)
SBI, BoB, Dena Bank
- - 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) - 1
(2.78)
All banks
3 (75.00) 4 (22.22) 1 (7.14) 8
(57.14)
- 8
(22.22)
None
1 (25.00) - 1 (7.14) 1 (7.14) 1
(4.55)
2
(5.56)
Total
4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22
(100)
36
(100)




106

Table 4.35: Distribution of dealers by indirect/direct cost for arranging loan for
tractor-company and state-wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Cost in Rs.
No. of dealers
Up to 5000 1 (25.00) 9 (50.00) 9 (64.29) 6 (42.86) 13 (59.09) 19 (52.78)
5001-10000 3 (75.00) 4 (22.22) 0 6 (42.86) 1 (4.55) 7 (19.44)
None 0 5 (27.78) 5 (35.71) 2 (14.29) 8 (36.36) 10 (27.78)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)

Table 4.36: Distribution of dealers by bank finance limit of dealer-state and
company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Bank limit
(Rs. In Lakh)
No. of dealers
Up to 20 1 (25.00) 3 (16.67) 4 (28.57) 2
(14.29)
6
(27.27)
8
(22.22)
21-40 0 4 (22.22) 0 1 (7.14) 3
(13.64)
4
(11.11)
41-60 1 (25.00) 5 (27.78) 0 5
(35.71)
1 (4.55) 6
(16.67)
61-70 0 2 (11.11) 0 2
(14.29)
0 2 (5.56)
No speciIic limit 1 (25.00) 1 (5.56) 2 (14.29) 1 (7.14) 3
(13.64)
4
(11.11)
None 1 (25.00) 3 (16.67) 8 (57.14) 3
(21.43)
9
(40.91)
12
(33.33)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)


Major dealer problems

Though a large proportion oI the dealers especially in Gujarat did not experience any
major problem, the common problems in dealership Irom the company side included
late supply oI tractors in season and those Irom Iarmer buyer side were payment and
Iinance problems especially when banks were involved in Iinancing (table 4.37).









1
0
7

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
3
7
:

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

b
y

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

-
s
t
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

w
i
s
e

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

S
t
a
t
e

I
n
d
o
f
a
r
m

S
o
n
a
l
i
k
a

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


P
r
o
b
l
e
m

N
o
.

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

N
o
n
e

3

(
7
5
.
0
0
)

8

(
4
4
.
4
4
)

5

(
3
5
.
7
1
)

9

(
6
4
.
2
9
)

7

(
3
1
.
8
2
)

1
6

(
4
4
.
4
4
)

P
a
y
m
e
n
t


p
r
o
b
l
e
m


(
m
a
r
k
e
t

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

1

(
2
5
.
0
0
)

2

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

3

(
2
1
.
4
3
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

4

(
1
8
.
1
8
)

6

(
1
6
.
6
7
)

P
a
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

I
i
n
a
n
c
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s


(
m
a
r
k
e
t

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)


0

3

(
1
3
.
6
4
)

3

(
8
.
3
3
)

L
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

i
n

s
e
a
s
o
n


(
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

0

4

(
2
2
.
2
2
)

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

3

(
1
3
.
6
4
)

4

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

d
o

n
o
t

t
a
k
e

c
a
r
e

o
I

d
e
a
l
e
r
s


(
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

0

1

(
5
.
5
6
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

2

(
5
.
5
6
)

N
o

m
a
r
k
e
t

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n

b
y

c
o
m
p
a
n
y


(
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

P
a
y
m
e
n
t


p
r
o
b
l
e
m

(
m
a
r
k
e
t

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)


a
n
d

L
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

i
n

s
e
a
s
o
n

(
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
i
d
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
)

0

2

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

0

4

(
1
8
.
1
8
)

4

(
1
1
.
1
1
)

T
o
t
a
l


4

(
1
0
0
)

1
8

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

2
2

(
1
0
0
)

3
6

(
1
0
0
)



1
0
8

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
3
8
:

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

b
y

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

f
a
c
e
d

i
n

d
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
-
s
t
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

w
i
s
e

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

S
t
a
t
e

I
n
d
o
f
a
r
m

S
o
n
a
l
i
k
a

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


M
a
j
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

N
o
.

o
f

d
e
a
l
e
r
s

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
r
e

c
o
m
i
n
g

I
o
r

e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

0

1
8

(
1
0
0
)

9

(
6
4
.
2
9
)

9

(
6
4
.
2
9
)

1
8

(
8
1
.
8
2
)

2
7

(
7
5
.
0
0
)

N
o

I
i
x
e
d

p
r
i
c
e

I
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

P
a
y
m
e
n
t

n
e
e
d
s

t
o

b
e

m
a
d
e

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

b
e
I
o
r
e


t
h
e

s
a
l
e

o
I

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
t
o
r

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

H
i
g
h

p
r
i
c
e

o
I

t
r
a
c
t
o
r

a
n
d

n
o

I
i
n
a
n
c
e


I
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

0

0

1

(
7
.
1
4
)

0

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

1

(
2
.
7
8
)

N
o

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s


4

(
1
0
0
)

0

2

(
1
4
.
2
9
)

5

(
3
5
.
7
1
)

1

(
4
.
5
5
)

6

(
1
6
.
6
7
)

T
o
t
a
l

4

(
1
0
0
)

1
8

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

1
4

(
1
0
0
)

2
2

(
1
0
0
)

3
6

(
1
0
0
)


109
Table 4.39: Distribution of dealers by their perception of extent of exchange
purchase in tractors-state and company wise
Company State
Indofarm Sonalika Standard Gujarat Punjab
All Consumer
()
No. of dealers
40-50 0 4 (22.22) 3 (21.43) 3 (21.43) 4 (18.18) 7 (19.44)
51-60 0 2 (11.11) 2 (14.29) 0 4 (18.18) 4 (11.11)
61-70 0 1 (5.56) 3 (21.43) 0 4 (18.18) 4 (11.11)
71-80 0 5 (27.78) 1 (7.14) 4 (28.57) 2 (9.09) 6 (16.67)
81-90 0 2 (11.11) 0 2 (14.29) 0 2 (5.56)
~ 90 0 4 (22.22) 0 0 4 (18.18) 4 (11.11)
None 4 (100) 0 5 (35.71) 5 (35.71) 4 (18.18) 9 (25.00)
Total 4 (100) 18 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 22 (100) 36 (100)


About 3/4
th
oI the dealers across states (2/3
rd
in Gujarat and ~80 in Punjab) reported
exchange sale oI tractors to the extent oI atleast 40 and going up as high as more
than 90 in some cases. Exchange sale was higher in Punjab than Gujarat and across
companies, it was Sonalika which had high exchange sales Iollowed by Standard and
almost on exchange sales in case oI IndoIarm (table 4.39).

In sum, most oI the dealers were literate and some had technical qualiIications and
long experience in product or related line with 22 as many as more than 21 years
each. One-third had no other income and another 1/3 were involved in Iarm business
as well. But, present dealerships were not very old as the tractor companies had been
recent start ups in the study cases. Most dealers operated only one outlet each and sold
Iive or less tractors per month each. The level oI competition was severe with three-
Iourth oI them Iacing 6 or more other distributors oI same or other company. The
companies mostly provided dealer credit Ior a Iew weeks and almost all oI the dealers
received mechanic support Irom companies. Dealers perceived that HP and Iuel
eIIiciency were major considerations in Iarmer purchase decision. Mostly dealers
were appointed on security money, show room Iacility and manpower Ior sales and
service. Timely delivery oI tractors by companies and repayment by Iarmers were
major dealer concerns. Exchange purchase (against old tractor) was very common in
tractor purchase especially in Punjab.



110
Chapter 5
Purchase and Use of Tractors

Tractor is an important and costly machine Ior the Iarmer. ThereIore, a Iarmer spends
considerable time and eIIort beIore purchasing a tractor and making use oI this
machine. Over the years, tractors have become a major source oI Iarm power in
agricultural sector. The availability oI easy credit and wide network oI tractor markets
has resulted in high tractor density resulting in saturation in some states like Haryana
and Punjab. On the other hand, overall level oI mechanization remains low especially
in rainIed areas. Viable market Ior tractors depends on rationale purchase and
rationale use oI tractors. ThereIore, it is equally important to understand Iarmer
purchase ad use practices Ior tractors in India. This chapter reviews previous studies
on the issue oI tractor purchase and use and examines the proIile and resourceIulness
oI the tractor owners, their decision to purchase the tractors and mechanism to make
its use viable. It goes on to examine the usage oI the tractor Ior various purposes
including custom hiring.

5.1. Purchase and use of tractors-A review

There have been only a Iew studies on the purchase and use oI tractors in the recent
years, that too largely by NABARD due to its interest in reIinancing tractors.

The Iarm mechanization policy oI NABARD states that a borrower should have a
minimum 8 acres oI perennial irrigated land Ior availing a tractor loan. This size oI
landholding is considered viable Ior the optimal use oI a tractor. An ex-post
evaluation study oI tractor Iinance in Mehsana and Rajkot district in Gujarat which
covered 21 and 26 tractor owners in Mehsana and Rajkot districts, respectively and 10
tractor hirers and 5 bullock users Irom each oI the district, observed that the average
size oI landholding was 14.1, 12.3 and 10.8 acres Ior tractor owners, tractor hirers and
bullock users, respectively in Mehsana and 26.2, 23.0 and 12.7 acres respectively Ior
the same categories oI Iarmers in Rajkot. Cropping intensity oI tractor owners was
13 higher than tractor hirers and 24 higher than bullock owners in Mehsana and
3 higher than tractor hirers and 8 higher than bullock owners in Rajkot. 60,
111
25, 10 and 5 Iarmers reported that shortage oI labour and higher labour cost,
multiple uses oI the tractors, increasing cropping intensity, and deep ploughing
respectively were the reasons Ior purchasing tractors (NABARD, 1992). As per the
set NABARD`s guideline, the beneIiciary was to contribute a down payment oI 15
oI the total investment cost oI the Iirst tractor and 30 oI the second tractor.
NABARD had stipulated that banks were to ensure that at least 50 oI the total
amount required Ior repayment oI loan installment and interest thereon will come
Irom the incremental income derived out oI the beneIiciaries` Iarms and the entire
loan was required to be paid by the beneIiciary within nine years. Though Massey
Fergusson (MF) and FORD were the most popular brands among the sample
beneIiciaries, there was a spatial variation in brand preIerence. MF was the most
popular brand in Mehsana and FORD was the most popular brand in Rajkot. In both
district together, nearly 45 Iarmers purchased MF brand tractors and 25.5 Iarmers
purchased FORD brand tractors, 17 Iarmers purchased International/M&M brand
tractors and the rest 12.7 Iarmers purchased other branded (HMT, Escorts, and
Kirloskar) tractors. About 66 Iarmers purchased tractors having HP between 31 and
40, and 32 Iarmers purchased tractors having HP between 41 and 50. It indicates
that Iarmers were interested in higher HP tractors. It was reported that higher HP
tractors were used Ior running compressors Ior digging wells which provided
additional custom service. Thus, decision about purchase oI a tractor with given HP
and make oI the tractor was inIluenced by various considerations such as topography,
nature oI work, nature oI custom services etc. (NABARD, 1992).

As per NABARD guidelines, besides requirement oI ownership oI 8 acres oI
perennially irrigated area Ior the borrower, the banks were also to ensure that the
tractor is used Ior a minimum oI 1000 hrs oI productive work in agriculture per
annum on own Iarm and on account oI custom services. NABARD (1992) reveals that
against the norm, the actual annual usage worked out to be 938 hours in Mehsana
(93) and 754 hours in Rajkot (about 75). In Mehsana, annual use oI tractor was
51.1 on own Iarm and 48.9 Ior custom hiring services. Agricultural and non-
agricultural/transportation uses contributed 46.6 and 53.45 oI the total annual use
respectively. In Rajkot, annual use oI tractor was 80.6 on own Iarm and 19.4 Ior
customer service. Agricultural and non agricultural/transportation uses contributed
43.9 and 56.1 oI the total annual use respectively.
112

NABARD study (1992) worked out per tractor operation and maintenance(O&M)
cost to be Rs. 22,166 in Mehsana and Rs. 19,340 in Rajkot. Fuel (diesel and
lubricants) constituted about 48.3 oI the total O&M coast, Iollowed by repair and
maintenance cost (33.5), and driver`s charges and other costs (18.2) in Mehsana.
The percentage Ior each oI the disaggregated O&M cost components was 45.6, 35.6
and 18.8 in Rajkot. Another NABARD (2005) study worked out per tractor overall
O&M cost to be Rs. 49,529 and Rs. 37,734 Ior new tractors and Rs. 34,659 and Rs.
30,156 Ior second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts oI Haryana
respectively. Annual maintenance and repair expenses worked out to be Rs.6,605
(13.3) and Rs.6,285 (16.7) Ior new tractors and Rs. 8,154 (23.5) and Rs.7,628
(25.3) Ior second hand tractors in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. Fuel
and lubricants expenses were Rs. 41,865 (84.5) and Rs. 30,573 (81.0) Ior new
tractors and Rs. 25,194 (72.7) and Rs. 20,943 (69.4) Ior second hand tractors in
Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. The insurance and other miscellaneous
expenditure was Rs. 1,059 (2.1) and Rs. 876 (2.3) Ior new tractors and Rs. 1,311
(3.8) and 1,585 (5.3) Ior second hand tractors in the two districts respectively.

Impact of tractorisation on yield and net income

NABARD (1992) study shows that crop yield was higher Ior tractor owners over
tractor hirers and bullock owners in both the districts. Tractor owners in Mehsana got
27.4 higher tobacco yield, 28.4 higher cotton yield, 19.3 higher castor yield,
9.5 higher wheat yield and 11.1 higher mustard yield over tractor hirers; and got
38.6 higher tobacco yield, 43.3 higher cotton yield, 69.4 higher castor yield,
17.2 higher wheat yield and 53.8 higher mustard yield over bullock owners.
Tractor owners in Rajkot got 12.7 higher groundnut yield, 38.1 higher cotton
yield, 14.5 higher bajra yield, 15.8 higher wheat yield and 25.0 higher mustard
yield over tractor hirers; and got 18.3 higher groundnut yield, 61.1 higher cotton
yield, 26.0 higher bajra yield, 36.3 higher wheat yield and 42.9 higher mustard
yield over bullock owners. Except groundnut and bajra, all were irrigated crops.

The per acre net incremental income oI tractor owners over tractor hirers was Rs.
1,367 and Rs. 212 Ior irrigated and unirrigated area, respectively and that is oI tractor
113
owners over bullock users was Rs. 2,820 and Rs. 414 Ior irrigated and unirrigated
area, respectively, and oI tractor hirers over bullock users was Rs.1,452 and Rs. 202
Ior irrigated and unirrigated area respectively in Mehsana. The per acre net
incremental income oI tractor owners over tractor hirers was Rs. 1,217 and Rs. 766
Ior irrigated and unirrigated area respectively and that oI tractor owners over bullock
users was Rs. 1,943 and Rs. 864 Ior irrigated and unirrigated area respectively, and oI
tractor hirers over bullock users was Rs. 1,452 and Rs. 202 Ior irrigated and
unirrigated area respectively in Rajkot. NABARD (2005) worked out per acre net
incremental income to be Rs. 4,152 with Iamily labour and Rs. 4,698 without Iamily
labour Ior new tractors and Rs. 9,138 with Iamily labour and Rs. 10,366 without
Iamily labour Ior second hand tractors in Kaithal and Rs. 4,780 with Iamily labour
and Rs.4, 653 without Iamily labour Ior new tractors and Rs. 8,404 with Iamily labour
and Rs. 9,464 without Iamily labour Ior second hand tractors in Faridabad oI Haryana.
The summary oI this study is given in table 5.1 below:

Table 5.1: Minimum area required for financially viable investment in tractor
Mehsana Rajkot Particulars
Tractor
owner
replacing
tractor
hiring
Tractor
owner
replacing
bullock
power
Tractor
owner
replacing
tractor
hiring
Tractor
owner
replacing
bullock
power
Minimum land
holding Ior
Iinancial viability
(15)
10.1 4.5 22.9 16.0
Required
incremental
income Irom own
Iarm and custom
service
26,634 26,634 27,136 27,136
Income Irom
custom services
17,029 17,029 5,796 5,796
Required stabilized
income Irom Iarm
business
9,605 9,605 21,340 21,340
Incremental
income per acre
877 2,123 931 1,336
Source: NABARD, 1992

In Haryana, the average size oI owned holding oI tractor owners in Haryana across
three zones (1, 2 and 3) was Iound to be 22.18 acres, 14.91 acres and 49.71 acres
114
against 12.92 acres, 7.91 acres and 26.83 acres oI the non-tractor owning Iarmers
respectively in 1992-93. Tractor Iarms augmented the holding size Iurther by leasing
in 2.89 acres oI land against marginal leasing by non-tractor owning Iarmers in zone
1, 7.36 acres against 5.16 acres in zone 2 and 8.07 acres against 0.65 acres in zone 3.
Further, education levels did not diIIer across owners and non-owners, tractor
purchase was result oI migration oI male members, insistence on purchase by younger
generation, need Ior land improvement and selI-employment through custom hiring.
42 oI the owners has purchased tractors second time with perceived age oI the
tractor being 7 years. The HP oI the tractor was dependent on size oI holding and soil
conditions. Tractor was mainly used Ior crop production related activities (90) that
too a Iew crops like wheat, paddy and mustard, and Ior ploughing, irrigation and
threshing. The annual usage varied Irom 633-768 hours across zones with 70-90
being Ior crop production alone. Custom hiring was only Ior 56 (9), 86 (12) and
170 (24) hours oI on Iarm usage across zones and mainly Ior ploughing and
threshing. Further, tractor and non-tractor Iarms had no diIIerence in cropping pattern
or labour use on Iarms per cropped acre. But, tractor Iarms had higher cropping
intensity and higher crop yields than non-tractor Iarms. The minimum land needed Ior
viable tractor use was Iound to be 15.15, 7.92 and 18.93 acres across three zones to
generate a rate oI return oI 15 (NABARD, 1994).

A recent study in Haryana covering 34 and 40 tractor owners in Kaithal and Faridabad
districts, and 10 second hand tractor owners and 10 non-tractor owners Irom each oI
the districts showed that the implementing banks have broadly adhered to the land
holding requirement during the implementation period as the average owned land
worked out to be about 19 and 14 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively
against 6.56 acres and 5.85 acres oI the control Iarmers in the above respective
districts . The second hand tractor owners possessed 3.50 acres and 3.16 acres oI own
land in the above districts respectively. The operational land holding in both the
districts increased aIter acquisition oI the new tractor. The post-tractor net cultivated
holdings were 23.62 and 18.06 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts respectively. It
was also seen that the purchase oI tractor has enabled the owners to cultivate more
land due to leasing-in oI land. The leased-in area increased Irom 2.41 acres to 5.00
acres in Kaithal district and Irom 3.30 acres to 5.08 acres in Faridabad district.
Similarly, Ior Iarmers possessing second hand tractors, the total operational holding as
115
well as leased in land increased. The proportion oI Iarmers cultivating more than 20
acres oI land increased Irom 9 to 22 aIter the purchase oI new tractor. Similarly,
the proportion oI Iarmers cultivating 10-20 acres oI land went up Irom 20 to 30
aIter purchase oI second hand tractor. The minimum land holding cultivated by the
borrowers was 6 acres in Faridabad district and 5 acres in Kaithal district. However,
later on, the PCARDBs and SBI were Iinancing tractors to borrowers having
minimum land holding oI 5 and 4 acres respectively (NABARD (2005).

Further, during the last 4-5 years, there has been decline in the sale oI tractors. The
sale oI tractors in Haryana state declined Irom 19,980 units in 1999-2000 to 14,403
units in 2001-02. The declining pattern oI tractor Iinancing observed in the banks was
inIluenced by the presence oI private players in the Iield. Mahindra was directly
Iinancing tractors by pledging just 1 -2 acres oI land. Similarly, UTI bank was
oIIering tractor loans Ior 3 acre holders. The Iinancing oI tractors at such low land
holdings was vitiating the atmosphere by putting the poor Iarmers under indebtedness.
This, iI goes unchecked, could put the entire system out oI rails and add to the Non-
PerIorming Assets (NPAs) oI the Iinancing institutions in the years to come
(NABARD, 2005).

All the sample Iarmers had 100 area under irrigation in Haryana. Source-wise
irrigation revealed that 85 oI the area was irrigated by tubewells (TWs) and the
remaining 15 with canals in both the districts taken together. Among the districts,
the share oI TWs was higher in Faridabad (89) and lower in Kaithal (82). All
secondhand tractor owners who had less than 10 acres oI land owned, on an average,
0.20 and 0.30 TWs in Kaithal and Faridabad in Haryana respectively. Also, less than
10 acres land holding new tractor owners had 1.25 TWs, 20-30 acres landholding new
tractor owners had 1.33 TWs, greater than 20 acres land holding new tractor owners
had 2.83 TWs in Kaithal. In Faridabad, all above mentioned land holding category
new tractor owners had 1.00, 1.5 and 2.33 TWs respectively. Overall, new tractor
owners in Kaithal had 1.8 TWs and new tractor owners in Faridabad had 1.52 TWs.
New tractor owners oI both the district together had average 1.65 TWs and
secondhand tractor owners together had 0.25 TWs. Non tractor owners had average
0.60 TWs with 0.50 TWs in Kaithal and 0.70 TWs in Faridabad.

116
In Kaithal district oI Haryana, the cropping intensity increased by about 10 on both
new as well as second hand tractor Iarms aIter the acquisition oI tractor. In case oI
Faridabad, the cropping intensity increased by 9 in case oI new tractors and 6 in
case oI second hand tractors. The increase, though not large, was signiIicant.
PCARDBs and RRB Iixed yearly installments while commercial banks Iixed halI
yearly installments in Haryana. The rate oI interest charged Irom borrowers by all
agencies on loans up to Rs. 2 lakh varied Irom 9.50 to 14.50 whereas Ior loans
above Rs.2 lakh, the rate oI interest was in the range oI 10 to 17. The loans were
secured by the Iirst mortgage oI land oI the borrowers and hypothecation oI the tractor
Iinanced. The value oI the land was determined according to rates available in
revenue records and loan amount was Iixed as 75 oI the assessed value oI land. The
average mortgage was 5.50 acres and 4.63 acres in Kaithal and Faridabad districts
respectively. The average down payment oI tractor borrowers was 18 oI the total
outlay (NABARD, 2005).

The Iarm mechanization policy envisaged that the share oI tractors above 50 hp
should not exceed 5 oI the total allocations The study showed that oI the 74 sample
tractor owners, only 2.7 borrowers purchased tractors above 50 hp. Among new
tractors (loanees), about 40.5 purchased tractors oI hp less than 35 and another
56.8 went Ior tractors between 35 and 50 hp. Among secondhand tractors, there was
no case above 50 hp. Based on the Iield interaction, it is reported in the study that the
tractors below 35 hp are suIIicient to carry Iarm operations. Tractors above 35 hp are
generally required to be used in land leveling, land shaping, and with reaper and
harvester combine (NABARD, 2005).

OI the total 74 borrowers in Haryana, 65 (88) had purchased tractor to replace their
previous/ old tractor with a new one. This clearly indicates the emergence oI a strong
replacement market Ior tractors. The minimum stipulated period Ior repurchase oI a
tractor is 3 years. OI the 65 replacements cases, only 9 per cent borrowers sold the
earlier tractors beIore 3 years, thus, violating the minimum stipulated period norm oI
3 years. About 37 replacements were due to excessive repair requirements and 35
were due to considerations oI change in hp. It is also pertinent to note that 14 oI
replacements were on account oI status symbol. Remaining 14 were due to reasons
like Iamily division, accidents, social obligations, etc. (NABARD, 2005).
117

This NABARD study Iound that about 32 new tractor owners used tractors between
201 and 400 hrs., 24 new tractor owners used tractors in the range oI 101-200 hrs.,
23 new tractor owners used tractors up to 100 hrs., 16 new tractor owners used
tractor in the range oI 401-600 hrs. and the rest oI the new tractor owners used
tractors Ior more than 600 hrs annually in Haryana. About 30, 40 and another
30 secondhand tractor owning Iarmers had up to 100hrs, 101-200 hrs, 201-400 hrs
oI annual tractor use. The study worked out the actual annual usage Ior new tractor
Iarms to be 495 hrs (49.5) in Kaithal and 351 hrs (35) in Faridabad oI Haryana.
The total use in both the districts together was 416 hours (42) Ior new tractors and
238 hours (24) Ior secondhand tractors. The total use oI 416 hrs Ior new tractors
consisted oI 327 hours (78.6) oI own Iarm work and 89 hours (21.4) oI custom
work. For second hand tractor Iarms, the total use was 238 hours which includes 119
hours (50) oI own Iarm work and 119 hours (50) oI custom work. Out oI the total
use oI tractors on own Iarms, the maximum use was on land preparation and inter-
culture (40-45) on tractor Iarms. This was Iollowed by haulage (26-31) and
marketing operations (16-20) (NABARD, 2005).

2.2.Tractor purchase and usage in Punjab

Farmer Profile.

The results are based on a sample survey oI 23 Iarmers in Mansa district oI Punjab
where Iarmers Irom all blocks oI the district were part oI the sample survey. Among
the sampled Iarmers, 65 were owners oI Sonalika and 35 oI Standard brand oI
tractors. These Iarmers were either with no Iormal education (44) or only upto 10
th

std. (43). Only Iour percent were graduates and 8 higher secondary literate (table
5.2). The landholdings oI these growers were by and large medium or large with
average owned holding being 11.15 acres and average operational holding being
12.38 acres. Small and very large Iarmers did not lease in land. It was medium and
large Iarmers who leased in some land to augment their own holdings (table 5.3). All
the landholders had all oI their land irrigated. So Iar as source oI irrigation was
concerned, almost 83 oI the tractor owners had their Iields irrigated by tubewell and
the remaining reported conjuctive use oI canal and tubewell water (table 5.4). All oI
118
them had atleast one tubewell each with 47.83 having two each and 135 each even
three and Iour tubewells each with maximum number being 7 in case oI two Iarmers.
91 oI the Iarmers had electriIied tubewells (67 tubewells) and the rest diesel run
tubewells (7 in number). Most oI the area was under traditional crops oI wheat,
paddy and cotton and 72 under HYVs (table 5.5).

Table 5.2: Distribution of sample tractor farmers by Educational qualifications
Educational level No of farmers of farmers
No education 10 43.48
Up to 7
th
Std. 3 13.04
8-10 Std. 7 30.43
11-12 Std. 2 8.70
Graduates 1 4.35
Total 23 100.00

Table 5.3: Distribution of farmers according to their operational landholding
Land holding category
(Land in ha.)
Parameters
2.00-
4.00
4.01-
10.00
10.01-
25.00
> 25 All
Number oI Iarmers 5 8 7 3 23
oI Iarmers 21.74 34.78 30.43 13.04 100.00
Own land 18.0
(3.60)
55.2
(6.90)
75.6
(10.80)
107.6
(35.87)
256.4
(11.15)
Leased in land 0

7.2
(0.90)
21.2
(3.03)
0

28.4
(1.23)
Operational land 18.0
(3.60)
62.4
(7.80)
96.8
(13.83)
107.6
(35.87)
284.8
(12.38)
Note: Figures in bracket indicate average land holding

Table 5.4: Land holding category wise tubewell ownership pattern among
tractor owners
2.00-4.00 4.01-10.00 10.01-25.00 > 25 Total Land in
ha.
Tube wells
No. of farmers
of
farmers
One 1 - - - 1 4.35
Two 4 5 1 1 11 47.83
Three - 2 1 - 3 13.04
Four - 1 2 - 3 13.04
Five - - 2 - 2 8.70
Six - - - 1 1 4.35
Seven - - 1 1 2 8.70
Total 5 8 7 3 23 100.00





119
Table 5.5: Land holding category-wise cropping pattern of tractor owning
farmers
Land in ha.
Particulars
2.00-
4.00
4.01-
10.00
10.01-
25.00
> 25 All
Total cultivated land 18 62.4 96.8 107.6 284.8
Area under traditional crops 18
(100.00 )
62.4
( 100.00)
93.2
(96.28)
107.6
(100.00)
281.2
(98.74)
Area under non- traditional
crops
0 0 3.6
(3.72)
0 3.6
(1.26)
Area under high yielding 18
(100.00)
48.4
(77.56)
70.4
(72.73)
68
(63.20)
204.8
(71.91)
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage oI cultivated land

Purchase pattern

Almost 83 oI the sample Iarmers had purchased new tractors and the rest second
hand tractors. Requirement Ior Iarming was the only reason Ior buying tractor. Major
consideration in purchase oI the tractor were oil eIIiciency, horse power, strength,
price and liIe oI the tractor in that order across both brands i.e. Sonalika and Standard
(table 5.6). The purchase price oI the tractor varied Irom 1.25 lakh in 1999 to 3.71 in
2006 with an average oI 3.339 across years oI purchase. Between the two brands,
Sonalika was costlier by a Iew thousand rupees. But, most oI the Iarmers (75) had
bought them Ior Rs. 3-4 lakh each (table 5.7 and 5.8).

Most oI the Iarmers (78) had bought 50 hp tractors with the next highest (13)
being 60 hp showing a clear preIerence Ior higher hp tractors (table 5.9). Most oI the
new tractors were bought Irom dealer and about 17 Irom other Iarmers, second hand
market or directly Irom the company as the company was locally located (table 5.10).
Farmers did not Iace any problem while purchasing a tractor Irom the
companies/dealers. Dealers gave cash discount oI Rs 3000-6000 to about 17
Iarmers.

Sources of credit and terms
About 2/3
rd
oI the Iarmers had bought tractors on cash basis with the rest buying on
credit Irom banks (table 5.11). Nationalized banks were the single source oI credit Ior
all credit taking Iarmers. The installments varied Irom 10 to as many as 18 in total and
5-9 per year (table 5.12 and 5.13). Margin money needed was about Rs. 80,000 on an
average with most oI tem paying Rs.30,000- 1,00,000 each depending on the year oI
120
purchase (table 5.14). Shortage oI required amount oI money was the reason Ior
talking credit Ior all the Iarmers. The land mortgaged varied Irom 1.6 hac to as much
as 3.2 hacs (table 5.15).

Table 5.6: Distribution of tractor owners by considerations in the purchase of
tractor (multiple responses)
Sonalika Standard Total Parameters
No of farmers
farmers
Oil eIIiciency 13 8 21 91.30
Power 7 6 13 56.52
Solid (Strength) 4 1 5 21.74
Price 2 1 3 13.04
Low pollution 3 0 3 13.04
LiIe 1 2 3 13.04
Low repair cost 2 0 2 8.70
Quality 2 0 2 8.70
Appearance 1 0 1 4.35
Gear setting 1 0 1 4.35
Can do all works 1 0 1 4.35
Resale value 0 1 1 4.35
Company's goodwill 0 1 1 4.35
Heavy duty 1 0 1 4.35

Table 5.7: Distribution of tractor owners by purchase price of tractor (by
year/model)
Model Year No. of farmers of farmers Avg. price/tractor
1999 1 4.35 1.25
2000 1 4.35 3.15
2001 4 17.39 3.16
2002 1 4.35 3.40
2003 3 13.04 3.17
2004 4 17.39 3.40
2005 6 26.09 3.87
2006 3 13.04 3.71
Average 23 3.39

Table 5.8: Brand wise distribution of tractor owners by tractor purchase price
1.0-
2.0
2.01-
3.0
3.01-
4.0
4.01-
5.0
Purchase price (Lakh
rupees)
Particulars No of farmers
Avg. price
/tractor
Sonalika 1 2 10 2 3.42
Standard 0 1 7 0 3.32
All 1
(4.35)
3
(13.04)
17
(73.91)
2
(8.70)
3.39
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage oI total sample Iarmers Replacement oI


121
Table 5.9: Distribution of tractor owners by Capacity (HP) and brand of tractor
Sonalika Standard Total Capacity (HP)
No of farmers
of farmers
39 0 1 1 4.35
50 12 6 18 78.26
60 2 1 3 13.04
75 1 0 1 4.35

Table 5.10: Distribution of tractor owners by source of purchase of tractor
Sonalika Standard Total Source
No of farmers
of farmers
Dealer 12 6 18 78.26
Other Iarmer 2 0 2 8.70
Secondhand tractor market 1 1 2 8.70
Company 0 1 1 4.35

Table 5.11: Distribution of tractor buyers by source of funds for purchase of
tractor





Table 5.12: Distribution of tractor buyers by number of credit installments
No of installments No of farmers credit taking of farmers
Ten 2 25.0
Fourteen 4 50.0
Sixteen 1 12.5
Eighteen 1 12.5
Total 8 100.00

Table 5.13: Distribution of tractor owners by frequency of installments/year
Installment period (years) No of farmers credit taking of farmers
Five 2 25.0
Seven 4 50.0
Eight 1 12.5
Nine 1 12.5
Total 8 100.00


Table 5.14: Distribution of tractor buyers by margin money paid for tractor loan
Margin money (000 Rs.) No of farmers credit taking of farmers
30-33 2 25.0
60 2 25.0
100 2 25.0
190 1 12.5
No response 1 12.5
Total 8 100.00

Sonalika Standard Total Source
No of farmers
of farmers
Cash 9 6 15 65.22
Credit 6 2 8 34.78
122
Table 5.15: Distribution of farmers by nature and amount of securities paid to
obtain tractor loan
Land mortgage (ha.) No of farmers credit taking of farmers
1.6 1 12.5
2 3 37.5
2.4 2 25.0
3.2 2 25.0
Total 8 100.0

Brand preference
A large majority oI the Iarmers perceived Swaraj to be the popular brand in their area,
Iollowed by Sonalika (22)- one oI the studied brands (table 5.16). The traditional
market players like Ford and HMT did not Iigure very well. But, still the sample
Iarmers preIerred Sonalika nd Standard due to reasons oI trial experience, and dealer
pressure besides brand value (table 5.17).

Table 5.16: Distribution of tractor owners by perception of popular brand
Brand/model No of farmers farmers
Swaraj 855 16 69.57
Sonalika 5 21.74
Ford 1 4.35
HMT 1 4.35
Total 23 100.00

Table 5.17: Distribution of buyers by reasons for preference for given brand
Sonalika Standard Total Reasons
No. of farmers
farmers
Brand 8 0 8 34.78
Brand and trial 3 0 3 13.04
Dealer pressure 0 3 3 13.04
Brand and advise oI other Iarmers 2 0 1 8.70
Brand and company`s goodwill 1 0 1 4.35
Brand and demonstration 0 1 1 4.35
Brand and low repair cost 1 0 1 4.35
Brand, nearby company, special gear 0 1 1 4.35
Brand and relationship with MD 0 1 1 4.35
Only Ior trial 0 1 1 4.35
Social pressure (relatives) 0 1 2 4.35
Total 15 8 23 100.00

Usage and replacement of tractor
Most common use oI tractors was 401-600 hours per annum with 30 Iarmers
reporting that. The next major group was the one which used it between 1001-1500
hours per annum which is more than the minimum use oI tractor Ior viability. Further,
123
KhariI had more tractor usage than Rabi largely due to paddy cultivation. But, still, on
an average, the tractor was used only Ior 751 hours which is much below the
NABARD norm Ior viable use oI the machine. It was surprising that about 9
Iarmers used it Ior less than 200 hours and another 13 less than 400 hours altogether
during the year (table 5.18).

Table 5.18: Use pattern of tractors
Uses in
hours
Particulars

100
101-
200
201-
300
301-
400
401-
500
501-
600
601-
650
Total
Kharif
No oI Iarmers 4 3 4 1 6 4 1 23 (355.39)
Iarmers 17.39 13.04 17.39 4.35 26.09 17.39 4.35 100.00
Rabi
No oI Iarmers 5 4 6 3 2 3 - 23 (295.00)
Iarmers 21.74 17.39 26.09 13.04 8.70 13.04 - 100.00
Other uses
No oI Iarmers 9 2 1 1 1 - - 14 (165.71)
Iarmers 64.29 14.29 7.14 7.14 7.14 - - 100.00
Total
Category oI
use hours

200
201-
400
401-
600
601-
800
801-
1000
1001-
1200
1201-
1500
Total
No oI Iarmers 2 3 7 2 2 3 4 23 (751.26)
Iarmers 8.70 13.04 30.43 8.70 8.70 13.04 17.39 100.00
Note: Figures in brackets indicate average hours oI tractor use in respective season.

Interestingly, across Iarmers, 94 oI the usage was Ior on-Iarm purposes with
minimum being 80 and maximum 100. Only 5.9 Ior oII Iarm work which
ranged Irom 0-20 across Iarmers (tables 5.19 and 5.20). As Iar as oII-Iarm tractor
use is concerned, household related works and land leveling were major uses. About
22 Iarmers did not get enough work, 48 Iarmer got enough work and 4.35
Iarmers used tractor only Ior their own work. A tractor was used Ior an average oI 5.2
hours per day Ior 176 days in a year. Most Irequent use was Ior 3-4 hours Iollowed by
4-5 hours (tables 5.21 and 5.22).

Table 5.19: On-farm uses of tractors
Uses ()
Parameters
80 90 95 100 Avg. 94.13
No oI Iarmers 3 6 3 11 23
Iarmers 13.04 26.09 13.04 47.83 100.00



124

Table 5.20: Off-farm uses of tractors
Uses ()
Parameters
0 5 10 20 Avg. 5.87
No oI Iarmers 11 3 6 3 23
Iarmers 47.83 13.04 26.09 13.04 100.00

Table 5.21: Per day use of tractor
Per day use (hrs/day) No of farmers farmers
3.00-4.00 9 39.13
4.01-5.00 7 30.43
5.01-6.00 1 4.35
6.01-7.00 2 8.70
7.01-8.00 1 4.35
10.00-11.00 3 13.04
Avg. 5.20 23 100.00

Table 5.22: Annual use of tractor
Tractor use (days ) No of farmers farmers
_ 60 6 26.09
61-120 5 21.74
121-180 2 8.70
181-240 4 17.39
241-300 2 8.70
301-365 4 17.39
Avg. 176.30 23 100.00

Life of tractor and replacement
The average liIe oI a tractor was reported to be 10 years with most Irequent period
being 10-15 years and 5-9 years. Sonalika users reported a little higher liIe Ior this
tractor compared with the standard owners (table 5.23). The liIe oI a tractor could
also be judged Irom the data on replacement oI the tractor by the owner. It was seen
that during the last 15 years, a major chunk (40) oI the Iarmers hade replaced only
one tractor and another 1/6
th
each 2 or 3 tractors (table 5.24). But, majority oI the
owners were oI the view that replacement depends on the condition oI the tractor and
requirement oI the work to be perIormed (table 5.25).

Table 5.23: Average life of tractor
Sonalika Standard Total Life period
(years ) No of farmers
farmers
5-9 4 4 8 36.36
10-15 9 4 13 59.09
16-20 1 - 1 4.55
Avg. liIe 10.09 14 8 22 100.00
Note: One Iarmer responded that the liIe oI tractor depends on maintenance.
125

Table 5.24: Number of tractors replaced during the last 15 years
Sonalika Standard Total Replacement time
No of farmers
of farmers
One 6 3 9 39.13
Two 3 1 4 17.39
Three 3 1 4 17.39
Four 1 1 2 8.70
Five 1 0 1 4.35
Seven 1 0 1 4.35
Ten 0 2 2 8.70
Total 15 8 23 100.00

Table 5.25: Frequency of replacement of the tractor
Sonalika Standard Total Period of change
No of farmers
farmers
Depends on condition 8 5 13 56.52
Depends on work 1 - 1 4.35
Depends on condition and work 5 2 7 30.43
Depends on work and need Ior HP - 1 1 4.35
AIter 16 seasons 1 - 1 4.35
Total 15 8 23 56.52

Major costs of operation and maintenance
The average annual cost oI the tractor worked out to be Rs. 41348 Ior Iuel and Rs.
4809 Ior repairs. The modal value oI the Iuel cost was Rs. 25,000-50,000 and 2-3
thousand Ior repair cost (tables 5.26 and 5.27). Added to the operations and repair
cost was depreciation cost which amounted to Rs. 89348 with more common Iigure
being Rs. 75000-1,00000 Ior more than 1/3 oI the owners (table 5.28).
Table 5.26: Major cost of tractor operation (Fuel cost)
Fuel cost (Rs) No of farmers farmers
_ 25,000 5 21.74
25,001-50,000 14 60.87
50,001-75,000 2 8.70
75,001-100,000 1 4.35
100,000-150,000 1 4.35
Avg. 41,348 23 100.00

Table 5.27: Major cost of operation of tractor (Repair cost/annum)
Cost (Rs.) No of farmers farmers
_ 2,000 2 9.09
2,001-3,000 12 54.55
3,001-4,000 0 0.00
4,001-6,000 5 22.73
_ 10,000 3 13.64
Avg. cost 4,809 22 100.00
126

Table 5.28: Depreciation cost of tractor
Depreciation cost (Rs) No of farmers farmers
_ 25,000 1 4.35
25,001-50,000 6 26.09
50,001-75,000 3 13.04
75,001-100,000 8 34.78
100,001-150,000 4 17.39
150,000-200,000 1 4.35
Avg. Rs. 89,348 23 100.00


Major problems faced

Though about 40 Iarmers did not report any major problem in purchase and usage
oI tractors, more Irequent problem Ior many others was poor quality oI spare parts
Iollowed by other problems which included main seal leak, high price oI spar parts,
leaking in zian, high noise, slow liIt, low Ilexibility, starting trouble, not powerIul on
load, and slip problem (table 5.29).
.
Table 5.29: Major problems faced by tractor owners
Sonalika Standard Total Problems
No. of farmers
farmers

No problems 6 3 9 39.13
Poor quality oI spare parts 6 0 6 26.09
High Iuel consumption 1 1 2 8.70
Higher repair cost 1 0 1 4.35
Non-availability oI spare parts 0 1 1 4.35
Other problems* 4 3 7 30.43


The above analysis oI tractor purchase and use shows that still dealers were major
determinants oI tractor purchase as most oI the owners bought the tractors Irom
dealers. Surprisingly, bank loan component in purchase had come down to just 1/3 at
least in the study area (Punjab) which is revealing. Further, no owner had landholding
less than two hectares which shows that marginal and small Iarmers still have not
Iound the machine relevant or aIIordable. But, gross underutilization even among
medium and large Iarmers is an issue which is worrying and compromises not only
the viability oI the machine but also oI the Iarming activity.


127
Chapter 6
Combine Harvester Companies: profile and business strategies

This chapter provides a proIile oI and business strategies oI the major organised
sector combine makers based on individual interviews and oI the small inIormal
combine makers based on a survey oI 16 oI them in the above said towns oI Punjab.

Organised Sector Manufacturers

A. Sonalika Agro:Sonalika Combines

Sonalika Agro Industries Corporation started manuIacturing multi-crop threshers in
1971 and has been leader in thresher sales in India. Now, its product range include,
stuIIed cutter, rotavator, selI propelled combine harvester, tractor propelled combine
harvesters, straw reaper, multi crop thresher, both tractor or engine/electric motor
model, paddy thresher, maize Sheller cum dehuskers, back hoe and loader, harvesting
attachments, reapers, potato planters, potato diggers, seed cum Iertilizers drills, and
diesel engines groundnut thresher and non tipping and hydraulic trailers besides,
ploughs, disks, cultivators, ridgers, seed cum Iertilizer drillers, maize and potato
planters, mowers and shrub master and levelers.. Market share in Iarm equipments is
80 in India. It also makes diesel engine engines and generator sets ranging Irom 3.5-
25 HP. The company also produces about 15,000 threshers which was 35,000
threshers every year up to 1997. 80 oI its threshers are tractor driven and 20 motor
driven. Ten years agro, it was 20 tractor driven and 80 motor driven. It has two
models in tractor driven and one in selI propelled combine. Threshers range Irom 2-50
HP. Its Haramba which ranges Irom 35-50 HP has a chopping system which no other
thresher has and it is mostly used Ior wheat. It makes about 100 combines every year
and the total turnover is about Rs. 170 crore. It started producing combines in2000.
The unit works in one shiIt and Ior 9 months.

It has about 50 technical workers and 10 managerial cadre. Though its production has
comedown but turnover has increased due to the change in the product proIile. For
example, engine driven to tractor driven threshers. The products have also change in
terms oI models, HP and Iunctional utility. Whereas 100 combines are sold on
128
credit, 80 oI the threshers are sold on cash. Threshers are very price competitive.
Most oI the thresher is produced and assembled in-house where as most oI the
combine components are bought Irom outside within Punjab. The company got into
tractors to leverage it combines and threshers brand.

Major markets oI the company Ior combines and threshers are outside Punjab. It can
manuIacture 200 threshers per day and 50 oI its threshers are multi crop, 50 oI the
threshers sales and 100 oI the selI propelled combine sales are replacement sales.
Sonalika combines are also Iitted on HMT, Mahindra and Mahindra and new Holland
tractors.

It has 800 dealers Ior threshers, mostly outside Punjab and all combines are sold at the
Iactor itselI. The company makes advance based sales oI threshers to the dealers and
takes security deposit and bank guarantees. It has one year warrantee Ior its products.
The company uses only pamphlets and hoardings and Iocuses on price advantage
instead oI promotion. The combine business is a low volume low margin business.
The state agro industries corporation buys 10 oI its total threshers sales.

One oI the dealers was oI the view that being a new brand, Sonalika sales were not
very good. The brand was perceived to have low quality and low resale value. The
company was not providing any support to dealers and there were too many dealers in
an area leading to low sales and lack oI viability. A thresher cost varies Irom 20-
80,000 depend on the capacity. There has been shortage oI threshers in the season and
dealers were not able to get supplies despite advance orders, but company provided
Iree access to all the dealers to the Iactory to see Ior themselves the supply situation.
Combine harvester
Sonalika also manuIactures Tractor Driven Combine Harvester both with and without
the Iront cabin. It can be operated with tractors ranging 50 H.P and above. These are
Iitted with power steering Ior convenient drive.
Its main components are cutter bar, main threshing drum, guide drum, straw walkers,
grain storage tank, elevators, sieves, blower, worms and outer pipe Ior shiIting grains
Irom storage tank to tractor trolley. Variety oI crops, like wheat, paddy, sunIlower,
129
soyabeans, mustard, etc are cut & threshed by this machine by making simple
adjustments. Wheat/paddy drums, wheat/paddy/mustard concaves, gap between drum
and concave - all can be adjusted conveniently, depending upon type and quality oI
crop, with the help oI lever system, mounted just close to the driver`s seat. This
harvester can cut the crop about 75mm above the ground, simultaneously cleaning
and collecting the grains in storage tank oI combine. The remnant straw is thrown out
by straw walkers in the Iield. The cutting capacity is approximately three acre/hour
Ior wheat crop and 2.5 acre/hour Ior paddy, etc..
It also manuIactures the Iollowing implements:
Mutli-crop threshers
SONALIKA Multi-crop Threshers are capable oI running with Electric Motor as
well as Diesel Engine and are compatible with tractor Irom 2 HP to 40 HP. These
threshers are suitable Ior threshing crops like wheat, maize, sorghum, grains,
sunIlower, ragi, millets, mustard & pulses etc. DiIIerent variants available Ior these
threshers are - selI-Ieeding chute, double blower, double speed, etc.
Automatic cutter (haramba)
SONALIKA" The Cutter Model Threshers are driven by tractor more than 25 HP.
These threshers are provided with P.T.O. arrangement and have choppers (2 or 3
optional). Crop is Ied by the conveyor without pushing into the thresher. BeIore
threshing, the crop is cut into small pieces by choppers and then threshed by the
threshing drum. It is capable oI threshing moist crop also. Thus with less Iuel
consumption and minimum load to tractor, higher output can be achieved. Gearbox is
provided to reverse the crop Ieed iI the machine gets choked. DOUBLE SPEED
CUTTER MODEL (HARAMBA THRESHER) has a special Ian Ior Iast cleaning
whose speed can be increased as per requirement.
Paddy thresher
"SONALIKA" Paddy thresher consists oI worm type threshing cylinder, Oscillating
box, winnowing and cleaning attachment, Ieeding chute etc. The body is made oI high
quality steel and sheets to withstand maximum wear and tear. These threshers can be
130
operated both with motor and diesel engine tractors. During threshing the paddy
crop's straw is separated Irom grain by worm type cylinder. The straw is thrown out
Irom the machine with the help oI blower. Other impurities like dust/dirt are thrown
out through other outlet. Extra blower is provided Ior cleaning oI grains, which clears
the leIt-over impurities. PADDY THRESHER is also available with the straw
walkers. In these threshers, straw is thrown back by straw walkers
Seed-cum-Iertiliser drill
SONALIKA manuIactures seed cum Iertilizer drill machine having 8 to 13 types
suiting variable customer's requirements. One oI these models consists oI machine
having single top box Ior seed and Iertilizer mixed together. In another model top box
has two separate compartments Ior seeds and Iertilizer. This drill machine can be used
to plant variety oI crops including wheat maize, millets and pulses etc. It can be
operated with minimum 25 H.P Tractor.
Potato planter
There are two types oI potato planter:

(1) Automatic (2) Semi-Automatic
With its particular setting, it automatically places potato seeds at proper depth, Irom
plant to plant and row to row .It can be operated with any tractor ranging above oI 25
HP. It has large capacity seed hopper to carry potato seeds Ior 300 meter long sowing
strips with single Iilling. Planting capacity oI the two row planter is 3 to 5 acre/day
while that oI the Iour row planter is 5 to 8 acres/day.
Reaper
Tractor Driven reaper is Iitted to the Iront side oI tractors and is operated by tractor
P.T.O and tractor hydraulic liIt system. This is used Ior reaping various crops like
wheat, paddy, soyabeans, pulses, millets etc. It has blades having sharp edges, which
cut the crop, and places it on one side in a line. It can be driven by tractors ranging 25
H.P and above. Its reaping capacity is approximately 10 to 15 Acres/Hour. Its 7 Ieet
131
wide cutters can cut the crop about 50mm above the ground. It is also successIul on
unleveled land.
Straw Reaper Tractor Driven Straw reaper manuIactured by Sonalika is used Ior
cutting stub ends oI wheat crop leIt in the Iields aIter cutting by Combine Harvester,
which simultaneously cuts these remnants into small pieces to make straw (chaII)
which is be used as cattle Ieed. Its outer pipe is attached to tractor trolley covered with
net to collect the chaII. It can make 10 to 15 trolleys oI straw per day. It also collects
and cuts the straw thrown out by combine in the Iield. At the same time it collects the
grains leIt in the Iield while cutting with combine and store them in the tray mounted
at its bottom having the capacity oI about 40 kg. It can cut stub ends 50 mm above
ground level and make straw oI diIIerent sizes with the help oI adjustable concave as
per requirement oI customer. It can be operated with minimum 45 HP tractor. Its main
components are cutter bar, main drum, guide drum, blower, outer pipe, oscillating
sieve, etc..
B. Preet Agro Industries Ltd.-Preet Combines

In 1980, when the nation was needed one type oI machine which could harvest &
thresh the crop simultaneously to reduce the losses oI Iarmers, Hari Singh, Managing
Director was working on a machine Ior the same along with his tractor mechanic
work. AIter three years, he established a small scale unit oI Harvesting Reapers,
Threshers, Agricultural parts. Later his brother named Gurcharan Singh, Director
joined him 1985 & they made Tractor Driven Combines in 1986.

Preet Combine Harvesters harvests wheat and rice in the northern and central region
oI India and Pakistan. Preet track combine harvests rice in the coastal area oI India.
Preet is one oI the India's leading manuIacturers oI agricultural tractors and combine
harvesters. One in Iive harvester machines sold in India is produced by Preet Agro
Industries Pvt Ltd Nabha. Preet is market leader in selI propelled harvesters in India.

Preet originated Irom a small workshop in Mandaur village in district Patiala in
1978.The Iounder oI Preet Mr. Hari Singh developed a small combine harvester in
1980. Later on his two brothers Mr. Gurcharan Singh and Mr. Prem Singh joined him.
132
In 1988, Tractor mounted Combine Harvester was developed. In 1989, Mr Hari Singh
developed a successIul selI propelled combine harvester. In 1990, Tractor driven
reaper was launched.
1996 Preet Agro Industries Private Limited came into existence and Combine
Harvester was approved by CFMTTI, Budni ( A Govt. oI India testing authority). In
2000-01, new models i.e. PREET-989, PREET-849, PREET-749, PREET-649
(Tractor driven) Combine harvesters in various ranges were developed and tested at
CFMTTI, Budni Maize and Regional Centre Hissar. The more recent models include :
PREET -987 mutli crop, PREET - 649 tractor operated, PREET - 949 track type,
and PREET - 987 maize special which was introduced Ior the Iirst Iirst time in India.
Maize Harvester plucks the cobs oI the maize and separates the grains. It is very easy
to grow maize and requires less water but diIIicult to harvest the crop. In 2002, Preet
introduced low cost Iuel eIIicient tractors in the range oI 35HP to 70HP.
The Brand name oI the company is the nick name oI the son oI the owner and it is the
same brand name Ior all the products oI the company. It was producing about 50
tractor driven combines each costing about Rs. 3 lakh which has been stopped now. It
produces about 300 selI propelled combines every year which makes it one the largest
manuIacturers oI these Rs. 10 lakh machine. It has the capacity to produce 700 such
machine every year.
At Sonalika,70 oI the combine is produced in-house. It imports some oI the
combine components Irom Italy, Germany and Belgium. Most the combines are sold
within Punjab with 70 being replacement sales. They give the guarantee and
warrantee oI the season an each combine.

C. Standard Combines and Tractors- Standard Combine

The Standard Group oI Companies, created and guided by Mr. Nachhattar Singh, is
well-known in India Ior its products and services provided to the Iarmers interested in
mechanized cultivation and transportation. The parent company Standard Combines
Pvt. Ltd.` started its business Irom a low level. Because oI its qualitative products and
aIter-sale service policies, it has now become a leader among the agricultural
machinery manuIacturers. It has been the market leader in manuIacturing and selling
133
Tractor Driven Combine Harvester in India Ior last two decades. The Standard Group
oI Companies is now giving stiII competition to the tractor manuIacturers because oI
its Iine quality tractors. The company is manuIacturing engines Ior its tractors, and
now also opening a separate Engine Division` to manuIacture and sell pollution-Iree
diesel engines to the prospective Indian and Ioreign customers. It is also making
earth-moving vehicles (Iront-end loaders and excavators; cranes; etc.) and now
making Ioray into the heavily competitive 2-wheelers and 3-wheelers segments oI
automotives.
The company was Iounded b Mr. Nachhattar Singh Ramgarhia who is the Managing
Director now and Iounder oI Standard Tractors; and also the Iounder and Chairman oI
the Board oI Directors oI the parent company Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd.`, which is
a leading manuIacturer oI selI-propelled and tractor-driven combines in India since
1975. Mr. Nachhattar Singh comes oI a Sikh Ramgarhia (carpender caste) Iamily oI
Bhari Gotra which hails Irom a small village named Handiaya oI Tehsil Barnala,
Distt. Barnala (earlier Sangrur) in Punjab. His brother Mr. Joginder Singh is the
Managing Director oI the Combine Division` and also serves as the Joint Managing
Director oI M/S Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd.
The Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd. (Combine Division) not only supplies its prime
product combines` to the Iarmers and Iarms all over India, but also exports the
product to South AIrican countries. The tractor-driven combine-harvester model
TSC-513`, designed and developed by Mr. Singh, has turned to be the most popular
model among the Indian Iarmers. Other products oI this company (Combine Division)
include straw reaper, Iront-end loader and excavator, etc.
Besides the Tractor division and the Combine Division, The Standard Group is
opening a new venture the Engine Division, wherein primarily two models oI
engines will be manuIactured, with an initial target oI 300 engines per month Ior each
oI the two models Ior sale. Under his initiative an eIIort is underway to make
collaboration with the Iamous Polish company 'EKO Diesels Ior manuIacturing the
basic Perkins engines in joint venture.
The tractor drive combine oI standard was designed by the owner himselI. Now the
company is in to tractors, cranes and three wheelers and two wheelers vehicles.
134

Standard Combines is producing around 500 nos. per annum. These are sold within
India and also exported. The most popular model is TSC 513. Another model is C-
412. The company (Standard Combines) is producing around 800 nos. per annum.
These are sold within India and exported to South AIrican countries as well.

Reapers: The only model is C-417. The company (Standard Combines) has produced
and sold Iew units and is ready to manuIacture more as per demand

Table 6.1: Sales of Standard Combines in and outside Punjab during 1997-2005.
Year In Punjab Outside Punjab
1997 500 12
1998 1200 12
1999 - 17
2000 - 141
2001 - 211
2002 - 270
2003 - 300
2004 - 400
2005 70 415

The total sales oI combines in India are oI the order oI 7-10 thousand per year with
Preet selling oI 2 to 3 hundred in selI propelled category and the leader. Punjab
accounts per only 10 oI the combine harvester sales with 90 being outside Punjab
specially Tamilnadu, AP, Karnataka, MP and UP. In India there are 35 thousand
combines now with 10 thousand being selI propelled and 25 thousand being tractor
driven. Out oI this Punjab accounts Ior 10 to 12 thousand. A combine harvester has
liIe oI 8 to 10 years. Whereas the market in other States is totally new, almost 50 oI
the market Ior combines in Punjab is replacement market. The combines are used Ior
harvesting many crops. Standard estimates its market share to 60 now.

The company has turnover oI more than Rs. 200 crore with 50 proIessional staII and
150 in marketing besides technical and unskilled staII in the three units oI the
company.

The company is not having any special supplier. The company buys the engines oI the
combines Irom Ashoka Leyland. The company exports 70-80 combines in an year.
135
The company is also having its dealers in Ioreign countries. The dealer net price is
revised every year by the agreement oI management. The company is not able to cater
to the demand because is not getting proper technical man- power in combine. The
company itselI gives the training to the mechanics who are working in the companies
service centre.

All workers in the workshop are Iully technical out oI which 25 on regular basis and
75 are contract workers. . There is only one shiIt oI working. The whole workshop
is divided in 12 shops and each shop is having its own supervisor. The company
manuIactures 6 combine per day. There are Iour models oI the combine which the
company manuIactures out oI which two models are selI-propelled.

The combines plant assembles 6 machines in a day which needs 80 workers and that
is the production capacity most oI these are tractor driven combines. All the combines
are made according to the tractor model on which they are to be Iit. Even, John Deere
combines are assembled by standard to Iit on John Deere tractors. ThereIore, all
machines are custom made Ior diIIerent tractors, brands and models. The combine
division has 550 workers oI which 25 are technical regular workers and 75 on
contract basis. There are 12 supervisory and 8 managerial staII in the plant. The
company buys Ashok Leyland Engine Ior selI propelled combines. There are 40
workers Ior testing and painting oI the machines. Due to the technical staII shortage,
the single shiIt operation is extended with the help oI overtime payment. The
company exports 70 to 80 machines every year. The whole workshop is divided in 12
shops and each shop is having its own supervisor. The company is not having any
special supplier. There is only one shiIt oI working. There are Iour models oI the
combines which the company manuIactures out oI which two models are selI-
propelled

Product range in Standard Combines

1.Tractor-driven harvester combines: The most popular model is TSC 513. Another
model is C-412.
2.SelI-propelled harvester combines: Standard Combines is producing around 500
nos. per annum. These are sold within India and also exported.
136
3.SelI-propelled straw reaper: The only model is C-417. The company (Standard
Combines) has produced and sold Iew units and is ready to manuIacture more as per
demand

There are Iour models oI combines produced by the company i.e. selI propelled
(C514, C412 and SP660) and tractor driven i.e. THC573. Standard Combines is
producing around 500 nos. per annum. These are sold within India and also exported.
The most popular model is TSC 513. Another model is C-412. The company
(Standard Combines) is producing around 800 nos. per annum. These are sold within
India and exported to South AIrican countries as well.

All John Deere dealers are standard combine dealers also. Though the company
competes with John Deere`s tractors, it supplies combines Ior their tractors under an
Agreement. The standard tractor dealers are separate Irom combine dealers and
number 300. Thus, only about 5 combines are sold through standard tractor dealers.
Most oI the combine sales take place through John Deere dealers. Most oI the
combine producers have similar dealer arrangement with tractor companies.

MRP-DNP is the dealer margin which is Iixed per tractor or per combine. For tractors
it is oI the order oI Rs. 50,000/- On the other hand, all combine manuIacturers agree
on a DNP every year Ior each model and this is adhered to by 5-6 major players.

To take care oI the crop residue burning issue, the company has launched Iorge
harvester to make manure and a rotaveter. The company does not provide any dealer
project but gives a cash discount oI Rs. 3000-5000 per tractor per cash purchased by
the dealer. NABARD gives 25 subsidy on the purchase oI combines through Bank
loan.

Small scale combine manufacturers

A sample survey oI 16 combine and other machinery manuIacturers revealed that
Iounders oI 50 oI these companies were under matriculates with some being totally
unlettered. On the other hand, managing directors oI only 25 oI the Iirms were
under matric in their education (table 6.1).
137

Table 6.1: Distribution of small scale combine makers by education level
Founder of companies MD of companies Educational level
No. No.
Nil 3 18.75 - -
Under 5
th
1 6.25 - -
Under metric 4 25.00 4 25.00
Above metric 8 50.00 12 75.00
Total 16 100.00 16 100.00

Almost 44 oI them started beIore 1990 and all beIore 2000. What 1980s seemed to
be the period oI spurt as more than 50 originated during this decade (table 6.2). By
now, almost all oI them were into combine making with majority into multiple
products including combine harvesters which included reapers as well (table 6.3).

Table 6.2: Distribution of small combine companies by year of origin
Years No. of companies of companies
1970-75 1 6.25
1975-80 1 6.25
1980 -85 5 31.25
1985-90 4 25.00
1990-95 2 12.50
1995-2000 3 18.75
Total 16 100.00

Table 6.3: Distribution of companies by type of main implements manufactured
Make No. of companies of companies
SP Combine 1 6.25
Reaper 2 12.5
Thresher/Reaper 1 6.25
SP/ TD Combine 1 6.25
SP Combine / Reaper 6 37.5
SP /TD Combine / Reaper 5 31.25
Total 16 100.00

A large majority oI Iirms (75) were in the turnover category oI Rs. 0.5-10 crore and
only one 50 lakh and two above 20 crore (table 6.4). Overtime, 1/3 had gained in
turnover, 1/3
rd
stagnated and about / lost (table 6.5).





138
Table 6.4: Distribution of combine companies by annual turnover
Turn over
(Rs./annum)
Parameters
< 50
lakhs
50 lakhs-
1 crore
1-5
crores
5-10
crores
10-20
crores
> 20
crores
No. oI companies 1 5 3 4 1 2
oI companies 6.25 31.25 18.75 25.00 6.25 12.50

Table 6.5: Distribution of combine companies by trends in turnover overtime
Turn over
Parameters
Increase Decrease Stagnate
No. oI companies 6 4 6
oI companies 37.50 25.00 37.50

The technical employees varied Irom less than 10 in case oI 5 Iirms and more than 20
in case oI 43.75 Iirms with the rest with technical workers ranging Irom 10-20
(table 6.6). 81.25 oI Iirm ran Ior only one shiIt a day with only 18.75 going Ior
two shiIts a day. Almost halI oI them had ~ 20 technical, ~ 40 non-technical and 1-2
managerial employees and 1-5 other employees. But, still, majority oI them has less
than 50 employees each (table 6.7-6.11).
Table 6.7: Distribution of Companies by Number of Technical Employees
Employee
Parameters
< 10 10-20 > 20
No. oI companies 5 4 7
oI companies 31.25 25.00 43.75



Table 6.8: Distribution of Companies by Number of Non technical Employees
Employee
Parameters
< 20 20-40 > 40
No. oI companies 6 2 8
oI companies 37.50 12.50 50.00

Table 6.9: Distribution of Companies by Number of Managerial Employees
Employee
Parameters
None 1-2 3-4
No. oI companies 6 9 1
oI companies 37.5 56.25 6.25

Table 6.10: Distribution of Companies by Number of Other Employees
Employee
Parameters
1-5 5-10 10-15
No. oI companies 10 4 2
oI companies 62.5 25 12.5
139

Table 6.11: Distribution of Companies by Total Number of Employees
Employee
Parameters
< 50 50-100 > 100
No. oI companies 9 5 2
oI companies 56.25 31.25 12.50

Only two companies had employed casual employees. Each one oI them employed 10
casual employees.

Interestingly, 43.75 Iirms had the Iounder`s name as brand name and another
18.75 their sub-caste as the brand name oI the company. An equal number (18.75)
each were named aIter the city oI origin or country and the religious leader/Iounder
(table 6.12).

Table 6.12: Distribution of combine companies by reason for given brand name
Reasons
Parameters
Founder`s
name
Country/city
name
Religions
leader`s name
Sub-caste of
owner
No. oI
companies
7 3 3 3
oI
companies
43.75 18.75 18.75 18.75

The production capacity was equally divided between selI-propelled and tractor
driven combines and both cases with more than 50 combines per annum. More than
2/3 oI them were still making reapers and another 12 threshers though most oI them
had started with threshers (table 6.13).

Most oI these companies did not have any dealer network as combines were made to
order and bought and sold at the premises oI these units. 50 oI them who were
selling outside Punjab had as many as 6 or more dealers outside Punjab (table 6.14).
Only one Iirm had dealer system within Punjab with about halI a dozen dealers.









140
Table 6.13: Distribution of combine companies by annual production capacity
Product Capacity (no. of machines)

Particulars
< 10 10-
20
20-
30
30-
40
40-
50
> 50
SP No. oI companies 3 - 2 - - 9
oI companies 18.75 - 12.5 - - 56.25
TD No. oI companies - - - - - 9
oI companies - - - - - 56.25
Reaper No. oI companies 1 1 - - - 11
oI companies 6.25 6.25 - - - 68.75
Thresher No. oI companies - - - - - 2
oI companies - - - - - 12.5

Table 6.14: Distribution of combine companies by companies` dealer net work
Location Numbers
Particulars
None 1-2 3-4 5-6 ~ 6
In Punjab No. oI companies 15 - - 1 -
oI companies 93.75 - - 6.25 -
Outside Punjab No. oI companies 3 2 3 8
oI companies 18.75 12.5 18.75 0 50.00

So Iar as pricing was concerned, the prices oI SP ranged between Rs. 9-11 lakh and
that oI tracor driven between Rs. 4-4.5 lakh each (table 6.15). The price was based on
cost or cost and market competition, by and large (table 6.16).

Table 6.15: Distribution of combine companies by price of implements
Product Type Price (Rs lakh) No of companies of companies
SP 9-11 13 81.25 Combine
TD 4-4.5 6 37.50
Reaper 1-1.15 7 43.75
Thresher 0.60 2 12.50
Rotavator 0.65 1 6.25

Table 6.16: Distribution of combine companies by product price determining
factors
Factors
Parameters
Cost Market
competition
Cost and market
competition
Cost and
material
No. oI
companies
7 1 7 1
oI
companies
43.75 6.25 43.75 6.25

The companies were selling less than 10 combines to as many as more than 50
combines per year with a large proportion (44) selling more than 50 each. There
were either very small players or very large players with very Iew in between (table
6.17). Their sales had stagnated or decreased over time as reIlected in turnover as well
141
(table 6.18). Major reasons Ior declining or stagnant sales included higher product
availability, variation in market, intention to remain small, Iull capacity use oI
existing plant, and sales only in Punjab. Only three companies (18.75) exported
combines to Zambia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, while only one company (6.25)
exported Reaper to Pakistan. Companies did not Iace any market competition. No
company supplied its products to MNCs. Only one company had sale-purchase
collaboration with Mahindra.
Table 6.17: Distribution of combine companies by total sales in 2006-07
Sale (Numbers)
Particulars

Product
< 10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 > 50
No. oI companies Combine 3 1 - 1 1 7
oI companies 18.75 6.25 - 6.25 6.25 43.75
No. oI companies Reaper 2 - - - 7 5
oI companies 12.50 - - - 43.75 31.25
No. oI companies Thresher - - - - - 2
oI companies - - - - - 12.5

Table 6.18: Distribution of Companies by Sales overtime
Sale
Parameters
Increase Decrease Stagnate
No. oI companies 5 5 6
oI companies 31.25 31.25 37.5

Major reasons Ior entering this business line included new demand including Irom
existing customers, import problems, new technology, and specialization (6.19).

Table 6.19: Distribution of combine companies by main reasons for entering
combine business
Reasons No of companies of companies
Demand 8 50
ShiIting Irom import to domestic production 1 6.25
Good relationship with Iarmers 1 6.25
New imported technology 1 6.25
Specialization in combine 1 6.25

Though companies were located in Punjab, most oI them did undertake product
assembly outside their place oI location or even outside state as it was a bulky product
their market was outside Punjab in states like UP, AP, MP, Maharashtra, Bihar and
Haryana (tables 6.20). Most oI them did not have any ancillary units to supply
components and they procured Irom the market all their component suppliers. Only
three companies had ancillary units. No company is importing any parts (table 6.21).
142
Almost halI oI them Iound that 50 oI the market was replacement market (table
6.22).

Table 6.20: Distribution of companies by place of product assembling
Place of product assembling No of companies of companies
In Punjab 4 25.00
Outside Punjab 12 75.00
Total 16 100.00

Table 6.21: Distribution of Companies by major markets outside Punjab
Major markets No. of companies of companies
UP 11 68.75
Haryana 7 43.75
Andhra 7 43.75
Maharashtra 5 31.25
MP 4 25.00
Bihar 4 25.00
Tamilnadu 2 12.50
Rajasthan 1 6.25
Gujarat 1 6.25
None 1 6.25

Table 6.22: Distribution of Companies by type of buyers
50 > 50 < 50 50 Buyers
Parameters
New buyers Replacement buyers
No. oI companies 7 9 9 7
oI companies 43.75 56.25 56.25 73.75

With change in demand and competition, all oI them Iloated new models and
improved Iunctional utility oI the product including horsepower since it was a
machine with long liIe ranging Irom 10-20 years though some Iarmers also replaced it
with 5-10 years (tables 6.23 and 6.24).

Table 6.23: Distribution of companies by major changes in combine harvester
Type of changes
Parameters
HP Functional utility Modal/ shape Any other
No. oI companies 13 12 16 9
oI companies 81.25 75.00 100.00 56.25

Table 6.24: Distribution of Companies by perceived Life of Combine harvesters
Product life (in years)
Parameters
5-10 10-15 15-20
No. oI companies 4 7 5
oI companies 25 43.75 31.25

143
Distribution and Promotion

One company emphasized a security deposit oI 10 lakh to oIIer a dealership and one
another company oIIered dealership to a dealer who held tractor dealership.
Companies normally give up to one year or two season`s warranty. Except the
warranty they do not provide any other aIter sale services. About 93 companies
train their mechanics. About 80 companies Iinance aIter sale service and 12.5
companies share the cost oI aIter sale service with their dealers. No company oIIers
credit to their dealers. Minimum sale condition Ior dealer varies Irom company to
company. For example, a company has set the target oI 10 combine sale per month
and another company has set the target oI 50 combine sale per year.

Newspapers and pamphlets were major media used Ior advertising oI the brands. The
advertising expenses varied Irom as little as Rs. 10,000 to a high oI Rs. 20,000 or
higher per annum (tables 6.25 and 6.26).

Table 6.25: Distribution of Companies by use of media for advertisement
Media
Particulars
Newspaper Pamphlet Other
No. oI companies 9 9 5
oI companies 56.25 56.25 31.25

Table 6.26: Distribution of Companies by amount of expenditure of advertising
Expenditure (Rs.)
Particulars
10,000 10,000-20,000 ~ 20,000 None
No. oI companies 5 0 7 4
oI companies 31.25 0 43.75 25

Major problems and future of combine harvesters

Though a signiIicant majority (69) did not report any major problems, the other
31 pointed to various, mostly market related, problems like Iarmer level problems,
nature oI market in terms oI demand and dealer level problems (table 6.27). But, a
majority oI them were upbeat about the Iuture oI the combine business with only a
Iew (25-30) perceiving it to be dark or stagnating (table 6.28).



144
Table 6.27: Distribution of Companies by major problems faced by them
Problems
Parameters
Market Dealer Farmer None
No. oI companies 3 2 4 11
oI companies 18.75 12.50 25.00 68.75

Table 6.28: Distribution of Companies by perception of future of Combine
industry
Future
Particulars
Bright Dark Stagnate Variation
No. oI companies 9 4 1 2
oI companies 56.25 25.00 6.25 12.50

























145
Chapter 7
Purchase and Use of Combine Harvesters: A Farmer level
perspective

This chapter examines the proIile oI combine owners and the use oI the machine in
terms oI its utlilisation, viability and impact on local economy and Iarmers. It is
based on a sample survey oI 42 combine owners in Punjab (26), Maharashtra (9) and
Gujarat (table 7.1). Where as Punjab is known Ior intensive and extensive use oI
combine Ior quite some time now and was the pioneer state in manuIacturing and
using the machine due to its cropping pattern dominated by wheat paddy Ior which
the machine was originally intended, the other two states are more recent markets Ior
this machine and are agriculturally important with modest levels oI agricultural
development. ThereIore, this chapter makes a comparative analysis oI the Iarmer level
inIormation and issues across three states so Iar as combine harvester purchase and
use are concerned.

So Iar as the level oI literacy oI combine owners is concerned, 1/3 oI them were
illiterate with more than 53 being so in Punjab. Comparatively, the literacy levels
were much better in Gujarat and Maharashtra with 28 and 88 being above matric
literate (table 7.2). Farmers Irom Maharashtra had the highest education level. 55.55
percent had graduation or technical diplomas. Also, 33.33 had higher secondary
education and all the Iarmers had education up to atleast metric level. Contrary to this,
Iarmers in Punjab were mostly uneducated. Only 15.4 had higher secondary
education (rest all having education level below it). Farmers in Gujarat showed a
middle level oI education pattern with education oI most oI them being between
standard 7
th
and 12
th
. Even in Tamilnadu, most oI the owners were either illiterate or
literate upto the 10th standard. On the other hand, hirers were better educated (no
illiterate at all). Most oI the owners and hirers were owners oI tractors. (NABARD,
2005a).




146
Table 7.1: Distribution of Sample Combine harvester owners by State
State District Block No of
farmers
of
farmers
Gujarat Ahmedabad,
Surat
Ahmedabad 7 16.7
Maharashtra Nandurbar Nandurbar, Shahada 9 21.4
Punjab Mansa Mansa, Jhunir, Sardulgrah,
Bhikhi
26 61.9
Total 42 100.00

In Gujarat, 42.9 Iarmers had landholding between 10 ha and 25 ha and another
42.9 had landholding above 25 ha. No landholding was below 4 ha. In Maharashtra,
55.5 Iarmers had landholding 10 hectares or above. Also, 22.2 Iarmers had
landholding below 2ha. In Punjab, 34.5 Iarmers had landholding between 4 ha and
10 ha, 38.5 between 10 ha and 25 ha and another 11.5 had landholding above
25ha. No landholding was below 4 ha. In all, more than 50 Iarmers had landholding
10 hectares or above across states. Similar percentage in Gujarat was 85.72.

Table 7.2: State-wise educational qualifications of Combine owning farmers
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Educational level
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No education 0 0 0 0 14 53.8 14 33.3
Can read and
write
0 0 0 0 1 3.8 1 2.4
Up to 7
th
Std. 3 42.9 0 0 6 23.1 9 21.4
8-10 Std./Metric 2 28.6 1 11.1 1 3.8 4 9.5
Higher Secondary
Education (11-12
Std.)
1 14.3 3 33.3 4 15.4 8 19.0
Graduate and
above
1 14.3 3 33.3 0 0 4 9.5
Diploma/technical 0 0 2 22.2 0 0 2 4.8
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

The combine owners were large land holders in Gujarat with average size oI
operations holding being 23 acres and owned holding being 19 acres compared with
14 and 9 acres in Maharashtra and 15 and 13 acres in Punjab. In Gujarat, no combine
owner was smallholder or even medium holder (10 acres) while in Maharashtra and
Punjab there were some small, medium land holder and even landless persons in
Maharshtra had combines (Table 7.3). A Gujarat Iarmer holding 40 hectares oI land
possessed two combines one each oI Swaraj and Mahindra. A recent study
(NABARD, 2005) oI 10 combine owners and 20 hirers in Tiruvallur and Salem
147
districts (in 2000-01, these two districts had the second and the third highest Iinancing
oI this machine in the state) oI Tamilandu, the state which had 1913 tractor operated,
3322 selI propelled and 4285 multi crop combine harvestors (totaling 9520 in 1998)
showed that they had 22 acres oI landholding on an average and used the machine
mainly Ior paddy harvesting. Whereas owners were mostly in the range oI 10-20 and
20-30 acres, hirers were smaller holders with less than 10 or 10-20 acres each
(NABARD, 2005a).

Whereas 6 and 16 land was unirrigated in Gujarat and Maharashtra, in Punjab
100 land oI the combine owners was irrigated (table 7.4). Further, almost all oI the
land owned by Iarmers was under cultivation. Percentage oI irrigated land oI the total
cultivated land was very high in all the three states (100 in Punjab and more than
90 in both Gujarat and Maharashtra). Though Punjab` combine owners had only
tubewell based irrigation, Iarmers in Gujarat and Maharashtra also depended on wells,
liIt irrigation, and canals to irrigate their lands with some having no source oI
irrigation at all. (table 7.5). Further, these owner Iarmers had multiple tubewells Ior
irrigation (table 7.6) and mostly run by electricity with only two Iarmers in
Maharashtra not owning any device Ior irrigation and one Iarmer in Punjab using only
diesel engine Ior irrigation (table 7.7). Majority oI Iarmers in all the three states had
less than or three water extraction devices. However, majority oI the bigger Iarmers
(land holding over 25 ha) had 5 or 6 water extraction devices. Most oI the area oI
these Iarmers was under traditional crops with signiIicant area in Maharashtra and
Gujarat only being under non-traditional crops but not in Punjab (table 7.8). Tradition
crops in Punjab are wheat, paddy and cotton. In Gujarat and Maharashtra, they are
maize, sugarcane, sorghum (jowar), wheat, paddy and pulses. Non traditional crops
are potato and other than wheat and paddy in Punjab while they are Soya bean, Iruits
and vegetables in Gujarat and Maharashtra.





1
4
8

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
:
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

l
a
n
d
h
o
l
d
i
n
g

p
a
t
t
e
r
n

a
c
r
o
s
s

s
t
a
t
e
s






L
a
n
d

h
o
l
d
i
n
g

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

(
L
H
C

i
n

h
a
)

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s


L
a
n
d
l
e
s
s


<

2

h
a


2
.
0
0
-
4
.
0
0


4
.
0
1
-
1
0
.
0
0


1
0
.
0
1
-
2
5
.
0
0


>

2
5

(
u
p

t
o

6
0
)

T
o
t
a
l

G
u
j
a
r
a
t








N
u
m
b
e
r

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

0

0

0

1

3

3

7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


0

0

0

1
4
.
3

4
2
.
9

4
2
.
9

1
0
0
.
0

O
w
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

1
0

(
1
0
.
0
)

5
6
.
0

(
1
8
.
7
)

7
0
.
4

(
2
3
.
5
)

1
3
6
.
4

(
1
9
.
5
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

i
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0

2
2
.
0

(
7
.
3
)

2
2
.
0

(
3
.
1
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

o
u
t

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

1
0

(
1
0
.
0
)

5
6
.
0

(
1
8
.
7
)

9
2
.
4

(
3
0
.
8
)

1
5
8
.
4

(
2
2
.
6
)

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a








N
u
m
b
e
r

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

1

1

0

2

3

2

9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


1
1
.
1

1
1
.
1

0

2
2
.
2

3
3
.
3

2
2
.
2

1
0
0
.
0

O
w
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

0

1
6

(
8
.
0
)

2
5
.
2

(
8
.
4
)

3
6
.
0

(
1
8
.
0
)

7
8
.
4

(
8
.
7
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

i
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

2
3
.
2

(
7
.
7
)

2
0
.
0

(
1
0
.
0
)

4
3
.
2

(
4
.
8
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

o
u
t

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

0
.
0

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

0

1
6

(
8
.
0
)

4
8
.
4

(
1
6
.
1
)

5
6
.
0

(
2
8
.
0
)

1
2
1
.
6

(
1
3
.
5
)

P
u
n
j
a
b








N
u
m
b
e
r

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

0

0

4

9

1
0

3

2
6


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


0

0

1
5
.
4

3
4
.
6

3
8
.
5

1
1
.
5

1
0
0
.
0

O
w
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

7
.
6

(
1
.
9
)

5
9
.
2

(
6
.
6
)

1
4
3
.
6

(
1
4
.
4
)

1
3
8
.
0

(
4
6
.
0
)

3
4
8
.
4

(
1
3
.
4
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

i
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

2

(
0
.
5
)

1
0
.
4

(
1
.
2
)

2
9
.
6

(
3
.
0
)

0
.
0

4
2
.
0

(
1
.
6
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

o
u
t

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

2
.
0

(
0
.
2
)

0
.
0


0
.
0

2
.
0

(
0
.
1
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

6
7
.
6

(
7
.
5
)

1
7
3
.
2

(
1
7
.
3
)

1
3
8
.
0

(
4
6
.
0
)

3
8
8
.
4

(
1
4
.
9
)

A
l
l









N
u
m
b
e
r

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

1

1

4

1
2

1
6

8

4
2


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


2
.
4

2
.
4

9
.
5

2
8
.
6

3
8
.
1

1
9
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

O
w
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

7
.
6

(
1
.
9
)

8
5
.
2

(
7
.
1
)

2
2
4
.
8

(
1
4
.
1
)

2
4
4
.
4

(
3
0
.
6
)

5
6
3
.
2

(
1
3
.
4
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

i
n

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

2

(
0
.
5
)

1
0
.
4

(
0
.
9
)

5
2
.
8

(
3
.
3
)

4
2

(
5
.
3
)

1
0
7
.
2

(
2
.
6
)

L
e
a
s
e
d

o
u
t

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

2
.
0

(
0
.
2
)

0
.
0

0

2
.
0

(
0
.
0
)

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

9
3
.
6

(
7
.
8
)

2
7
7
.
6

(
1
7
.
4
)

2
8
6
.
4

(
3
5
.
8
)

6
6
8
.
4

(
1
5
.
9
)

N
o
t
e
:

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

l
a
n
d


1
4
9

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
:
S
t
a
t
e

w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

a
n
d

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d
















L
a
n
d

h
o
l
d
i
n
g

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

(
L
H
C

i
n

h
a
)

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s


<

2

h
a


2
.
0
0
-
4
.
0
0


4
.
0
1
-
1
0
.
0
0


1
0
.
0
1
-
2
5
.
0
0


>

2
5

(
u
p

t
o

6
0
)

T
o
t
a
l

G
u
j
a
r
a
t







I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

1
0
.
0

(
1
0
.
0
)

5
6
.
0

(
1
8
.
7
)

8
2
.
4

(
2
7
.
5
)

1
4
8
.
4

(
2
1
.
2
)

U
n
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

1
0
.
0

(
3
.
3
)

1
0
.
0

(
1
.
4
)

C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

1
0
.
0

(
1
0
.
0
)

5
6
.
0

(
1
8
.
7
)

9
2
.
4

(
3
0
.
8
)

1
5
8
.
4

(
2
2
.
6
)

N
o
n

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

0
.
0

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a







I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

1
6
.
0

(
8
.
0
)

3
8
.
4

(
1
2
.
8
)

4
8
.
0

(
2
4
.
0
)

1
0
2
.
4

(
1
1
.
4
)

U
n
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

0

0

1
0
.
0

(
3
.
3
)

8
.
0

(
4
.
0
)

1
9
.
2

(
2
.
1
)

C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

0

1
6
.
0

(
8
.
0
)

4
8
.
4

(
1
6
.
1
)

5
4
.
8

(
2
7
.
4
)

1
2
0
.
4

(
1
3
.
4
)

N
o
n

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

1
.
2

(
0
.
6
)

1
.
2

(
0
.
1
)

P
u
n
j
a
b







I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

6
7
.
6

(
7
.
5
)

1
7
3
.
2

(
1
7
.
3
)

1
3
8
.
0

(
4
6
.
0
)

3
8
8
.
4

(
1
4
.
9
)

U
n
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

6
7
.
6

(
7
.
5
)

1
7
3
.
2

(
1
7
.
3
)

1
3
8
.
0

(
4
6
.
0
)

3
8
8
.
4

(
1
4
.
9
)

N
o
n

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

A
l
l








I
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

9
3
.
6

(
7
.
8
)

2
6
7
.
6

(
1
6
.
7
)

2
6
8
.
4

(
3
3
.
6
)

6
3
9
.
2

(
1
5
.
2
)

U
n
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

0

0

1
0
.
0

(
0
.
6
)

1
8
.
0

(
2
.
3
)

2
9
.
2
(
0
.
7
)

C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

1
.
2

(
1
.
2
)

9
.
6

(
2
.
4
)

9
3
.
6

(
7
.
8
)

2
7
7
.
6

(
1
7
.
4
)

2
8
5
.
2

(
3
5
.
7
)

6
6
8
.
4

(
1
5
.
9
)


N
o
n

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

l
a
n
d

(
h
a
)

0

0

0

0
.
0

1
.
2

(
0
.
2
)

1
.
2

(
0
.
1
)

N
o
t
e
:

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

l
a
n
d

150

Table 7.5: Distribution of combine owners by sources of irrigation for farming across states
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Sources
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No
irrigation
source
0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0 2 4.8
Bore/Tube
well
2 28.6 5 55.6 26 100 33 78.6
Well 0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0 2 4.8
Canal and
Tube well
3 42.9 0 0.0 0 0 3 7.1
River liIt,
well, and
bore well
2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0 2 4.8
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100 42 100.0

Table 7.6: State-wise distribution of combine owners by source of energy for irrigation
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Source of
energy No. of
water
extraction
devices
No. of
water
extraction
devices
No. of
water
extraction
devices
No. of
water
extraction
devices

Electricity 19 100.0 22 100.0 72 90 113 93.4
Diesel 0 0 0 0 1 1.25 1 0.8
Diesel
and
electricity
0 0 0 0 7 8.75 7 5.8
Total 19 100.0 22 100.0 80 100 121 100.0


1
5
1

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
7
:
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

d
e
v
i
c
e
s

a
c
r
o
s
s

s
t
a
t
e
s


L
H
C

(
h
a
)

W
e
l
l
/
T
u
b
e
w
e
l
l
s
/
R
i
v
e
r
l
i
f
t

<

2
.
0


2
.
0
-
4
.
0


4
.
0
1
-
1
0
.
0


1
0
.
0
1
-
2
5
.
0


>

2
5

(
u
p

t
o

6
0
)


T
o
t
a
l


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

N
o
.

f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o


f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o


f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o


f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o


f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

f
a
r
m
e
r
s



f
a
r
m
e
r
s

O
n
e

0

0

0

0

1


1
0
0
.
0

1

3
3
.
3

1

3
3
.
3

3

4
2
.
9

T
w
o

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3
3
.
3

0

0

1

1
4
.
3

T
h
r
e
e

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1
4
.
3

F
o
u
r

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

F
i
v
e

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3
3
.
3

0

0

1

1
4
.
3

S
i
x

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

3
3
.
3

1

1
4
.
3

T
o
t
a
l

0

0

0

0

1

1
0
0
.
0

3

1
0
0
.
0

3

1
0
0
.
0

7

1
0
0
.
0

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a













N
o
n
e


2

1
0
0
.
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2
2
.
2

O
n
e

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1
1
.
1

T
w
o

0

0

0

0

2

1
0
0
.
0

1

3
3
.
3

0

0

3

3
3
.
3

F
o
u
r

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1
1
.
1

F
i
v
e

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

5
0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

S
i
x

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

5
0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

T
o
t
a
l

2

1
0
0
.
0

0

0

2

1
0
0
.
0

3

1
0
0
.
0

2

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

P
u
n
j
a
b













O
n
e

0

0

3

7
5
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0

0

0

4

1
5
.
4

T
w
o

0

0

1

2
5
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

1

1
0
.
0

1

3
3
.
3

6

2
3
.
1

T
h
r
e
e

0

0

0

0

2

2
2
.
2

6

6
0
.
0

0

0

8

3
0
.
8

F
o
u
r

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

0

0

1

0

1

3
.
8

F
i
v
e

0

0

0

0

2

2
2
.
2

3

0

1

3
3
.
3

6

2
3
.
1

S
i
x

0

0

0

0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

0

0

4

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

1
0

1
0
0
.
0

3

1
0
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

A
l
l













N
o
n
e

2

1
0
0
.
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

4
.
8

O
n
e

0

0

3

7
5
.
0

2

1
6
.
7

2

1
2
.
5

1

1
2
.
5

8

1
9
.
0

T
w
o

0

0

1

2
5
.
0

5

4
1
.
7

3

1
8
.
8

1

1
2
.
5

1
0

2
3
.
8

T
h
r
e
e

0

0

0

0

2

1
6
.
7

6

3
7
.
5

1

1
2
.
5

9

2
1
.
4

F
o
u
r

0

0

0

0

0

0
.
0

1

6
.
3

1

1
2
.
5

2

4
.
8

F
i
v
e

0

0

0

0

2

1
6
.
7

4

2
5
.
0

2

2
5
.
0

8

1
9
.
0

S
i
x

0

0

0

0

1

8
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

2
5
.
0

3

7
.
1

T
o
t
a
l

2

1
0
0
.
0

4

1
0
0
.
0

1
2

1
0
0
.
0

1
6

1
0
0
.
0

8

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

152
Table 7.8:State-wise cropping pattern of combine owners
LHC (ha)
Particulars
< 2.00 2.00-
4.00
4.01-
10.00
10.01-
25.00
> 25 Total
Gujarat
Total cultivated land (ha) 0 0 10 56 92.4 158.4
Area under traditional
crops (ha)
0 0 10
(100.0)
54 (96.4) 88.8
(96.1)
152.8
(96.5)
Area under non-
traditional crops (ha)
0 0 0 2 (3.6) 3.6 (3.9) 5.6 (3.5)
Area under high yielding
varieties (ha)
0 0 10
(100.0)
41 (73.2) 74 (80.1) 125.0
(78.9)
Maharashtra
Total cultivated land (ha) 1.2 0 16 48.4 56 121.6
Area under traditional
crops (ha)
1.2
(100.0)
0 14 (87.5) 45.2
(93.4)
42 (75.0) 102.4
(84.2)
Area under non-
traditional crops (ha)
0 0 2 (12.5) 3.2 (6.6) 14 (25.0) 19.2
(15.8)
Area under high yielding
varieties (ha)
1.2
(100.0)
0 16
(100.0)
48.4
(100.0)
56
(100.0)
121.6
(100.0)
Punjab
Total cultivated land (ha) 0 9.6 67.6 173.2 138 388.4
Area under traditional
crops (ha)
0 9.6
(100.0)
67.6
(100.0)
173.2
(100.0)
138
(100.0)
388.4
(100.0)
Area under non-
traditional crops (ha)
0 0 0 2 (1.2) 8 (5.8) 10 (2.6)
Area under high yielding
varieties (ha)
0 9.6
(100.0)
41.2
(60.9)
112
(64.7)
96 (69.6) 258.8
(66.6)
All
Total cultivated land (ha) 1.2 9.6 93.6 277.6 286.4 668.4
Area under traditional
crops (ha)
1.2
(100.0)
9.6
(100.0)
91.6
(97.9)
272.4
(98.1)
268.8
(93.9)
643.6
(96.3)
Area under non-
traditional crops (ha)
0 0 2 (2.1) 7.2 (2.6) 25.6
(8.9)
34.8 (5.2)
Area under high yielding
varieties (ha)
1.2
(100.0)
9.6
(100.0)
67.2
(71.8)
201.4
(72.6)
226
(78.9)
505.4
(75.6)
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage oI cultivated land. Tradition crops in Punjab are
wheat, paddy and cotton. In Gujarat and Maharashtra, they are maize, sugarcane, sorghum
(jowar), wheat, paddy and pulses. Non traditional crops are potato and other than wheat and
paddy in Punjab while they are soyabean, Iruits and vegetables in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

Combine ownership and use

In Maharashtra, both types oI combines were equally preIerred |TD:SP 55:45|. Punjab and
Gujarat had huge majority oI tractor driven combines over selI propelled. Reasons Ior preIerring
153
a selI Propelled combine included high work eIIiciency, Iollowed by multi crop use, low
maintenance and long liIe. This version was mostly preIerred by large Iarmers Ior whom
eIIiciency oI Iarm operations was essential to reap economies oI scale. On the other hand, tractor
driven was driven by tractor`s use in other Iield operations. It was, thereIore, logically preIerred
by Iarmers with low land holdings. Other important Iactors were low price, low Iuel and labour
cost and suitable Ior less land area required Ior harvesting. 70 oI the Iarmers in Gujarat and
80 oI the Iarmers in Punjab used combines oI a capacity oI 50-60 HP. This ratio does not hold
Ior Maharashtra where almost 45 oI the Iarmers use combines oI capacity 105-110 HP. The
capacity oI combines was higher in Maharashtra due to predominant use oI these machines Ior
custom hiring there.

The distribution oI second hand and new combines was around 65:35 in Gujarat, 55:45 in
Maharashtra and 40:60 in Punjab. (Overall, the ratio was 45:55). The tendency to buy new
combines was Iound highest in Punjab. So Iar as brand wise ownership oI combines was
concerned, in Gujarat, there was no clear market leader. However, Sonalika and John Deere were
ahead oI Farmtrack and Standard. In Maharashtra, there were only two players, Swaraj and John
Deere with almost equal market share. In Punjab, Standard was the market leader with only one
competitor (and that too, non signiIicant) in the Iorm oI Preet. Overall, Standard was the market
leader with a total market share oI 59.5, Iollowed by John Deere (16.7) and Swaraj (9.5) in
that order (tables 7.9 and 7.10). In Maharashtra, Standard, John Deere and Swaraj were
considered popular brands.

Reasons for purchase of a particular brand

In Punjab, popular brand image played a very important role in the purchase decision with 100
Iarmers Iactoring this in their purchase decision. Goodwill, experience oI other Iarmers and
resale value came next with almost the same proportion oI Iarmers giving importance to each oI
these Iactors (around 20). On the other hand, in Gujarat, dealer advice (57.2) and popular
brand image (42.9) inIluenced the purchase decision oI a majority oI Iarmers. Maharashtra
Iarmers went by popular brand image (33.3) and good experience oI other Iarmers (44.4),
though other Iactors also had an inIluence in case oI 77.7 Iarmers. Other Iactors included
154
aIIordable price, clearance, low maintenance, power steering, high work eIIiciency, local dealer,
easy availability oI spare parts, relationships with company, easy Ior use/driving, Iine cutter,
pressure oI relatives, and dealing (tables 7.11 and 7.12).

Table 7.9: Distribution of combine owners by type of combine owned- state and farm
category wise
Landless < 2.00 2.00-4.00 4.01-
10.00
10.01-
25.00
> 25 Total LHC (ha)
Particulars
No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Gujarat
TD 0 0 0 1 3 2 6
SP 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 1 14.3 3.0 42.9 3.0 42.9 7 100.0
Maharashtra
TD 0 0 0 2 2.0 1.0 5
SP 1 1 0 0 1 1 4
Total 1 11.1 1 11.1 0 2 22.2 3 33.3 2 22.2 9 100.0
Punjab
TD 0 0 4 9.0 8.0 3.0 24
SP 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 2
Total 0 0 4 15.4 9 34.6 10 38.5 3 11.5 26 100.0
All
TD 0 0 4 12.0 13.0 6.0 35
SP 1 1 0 0.0 3.0 2.0 7
Total 1 2.4 1 2.4 4 9.5 12.0 28.6 16.0 38.1 8.0 19.0 42 100.0

Table 7.10:Distribution of combine owners by number of combines possessed-state and
farmer category-wise
LHC (ha)
Particulars
Landless < 2.00 2.00-4.00 4.01-10.00 10.01-25.00 > 25 Total
Gujarat
Old and secondhand 0 0 0 1 2 2 5
New brand 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Total 0 0 0 1 3 4 8
Maharashtra
Old and secondhand 1 0 0 0 3 2 6
New brand 0 2 0 2 1 5
Total 1 2 0 2 4 2 11
Punjab
Old and secondhand 0 0 2 6 2 0 10
New brand 0 0 2 3 8 3 16
Total 0 0 4 9 10 3 26
All
Old and secondhand 1 2 7 7 4 21
New brand 2 2 5 10 5 24
Total 1 2 4 12 17 9 45
Note: A Gujarat Iarmer holding 40 hectares oI land and two Maharashtra Iarmers (each oI them) holding 1.2 ha and 24 ha land respectively
possessed two combines each.

155
Table 7.11: Distribution of combine owners by brands of combines owned- state and
farmer category wise
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Brand
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
Standard 1 14.3 0 0.0 24 92.3 25 59.5
John deer
with
Standard
2 28.6 5 55.5 0 0 7 16.7
Sonalika 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.8
Preet 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7.7 2 4.8
Farmtrack 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
Swaraj 0 0.0 4 44.4 0 0.0 4 9.5
Swaraj &
Maindrda
1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

Table 7.12: Distribution of combine owners across states by major reasons for preference
of a particular brand/model (Multiple responses)
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Reasons
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Popular
Brand/Brand
image
3 42.9 3 33.3 26 100.0 32 76.2
Good
experience
oI other
Iarmers
0 0.0 4 44.4 6 23.1 10 23.8
Dealer's
advise
4 57.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 9.5
Good will 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 19.2 5 11.9
Resale value 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 23.1 6 14.3
Quality and
strength
1 14.3 1 11.1 1 3.8 3 7.1
Others* 0 0.0 7 77.8 6 23.1 13 31.0
Note: *Others include aIIordable price, clearance, low maintenance, power steering, high work
eIIiciency, local dealer, easy availability oI spare parts, relationships with company, easy Ior
use/driving, Iine cutter, pressure oI relatives, and dealing

A recent study (NABARD, 2005a) showed that wheel version was more common (60, and all
Escorts model where as 85 Standard model) as it cost less (only Rs. 7.62 lakh against Rs.13.95
lakh). The minimum land required Ior loan was 6 acres and availability oI atleast 500 hac oI
wheat and 300 hac. oI paddy in wheat-paddy zone Ior custom hiring Ior viability oI the machine,
156
considering density oI machines in an area. Majority oI the owners had bought it Ior custom
hiring purposes and Ior the Iirst time only (50) or as additional one (40). Most oI the owners
(80) had tractors owned by them. The machines were bought on bank loan with 25 down
payment in case oI commercial banks and 10 in case oI co-operative banks with rate oI interest
varying Irom 14.25-15.75 per annum and repayment period Irom 5.7 years in either annual or
6-monthly installments. But, banks obtained security oI loans upto 3-6 times oI the loan amount
in terms oI mortgage oI land and other assets. The track version was used only Ior 45 hours (less
than 5) on own Iarm and hired Ior 900 hours in a year. Compared with this, wheel version was
used on own Iarms Ior 43 (4) hours and custom hired Ior 1080 hours in a year. Wheel version
was more commonly hired (60) as it was cheaper (Rs. 900 per acres) compare with track
version Rs. 1100 per acre as the operations cost per annum was higher Ior selI propelled
709 compared with 500 Ior wheel version. Thus, total use was 945 hours and 1123 hours in track
and wheel version on an average. The average O& M cost oI the track version (selI-propelled)
was higher 6.7 lakh compared with the wheel version (tractor mounted, 5.61 lakh). Thus, net
income Irom custom hiring was higher Ior wheel version (Rs. 4.11 lakh) compared with Track
version (3.2 lakh) and incremental income Irom own Iarm use a little lower (Rs. 70072 against
Rs. 74169 Ior track version). The combines oI the two types (track and wheel) replaced 27810
and 33150 man days respectively (NABARD, 2005a).

Preference for type of combine

Tractor mounted version was preIerred over selI propelled version almost in all states due to its
lower cost, use oI tractor Ior other purposes, low Iuel consumption, and lower maintenance (table
7.13). Where as in Punjab, combine harvestors have been bought by Iarmers since the early
1990s and only very Iew during the last Iew years Ior the Iirst time, in Gujarat and Maharashtra,
it is phenomenon oI only last 2-3 years (table 7.14). Since the eighties, Iarmers in Punjab have
taken to combines in a big way, so much so that these machines harvest roughly three-Iourths oI
the wheat and paddy grown in Punjab. In terms oI prices, John Deere and Farm Track were the
costliest and the local brands i.e. Swaraj and Standard the cheapest among all (Table 7.15). So
Iar as capacity oI combine harvestors was concerned, in Gujarat and Punjab, where in many
cases, combines were used mainly Ior own work, the capacity was smaller in terms oI HP oI
157
machine as against Maharashtra where very large capacity machines like above 100 HP were
more common as they were primarily used Ior custom hiring. But, in general, most common HP
was 55 HP and 60 HP Iollowed by 50 HP (table 7.16).

1
5
8

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
3
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

a

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

t
y
p
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

R
e
a
s
o
n
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
e
l
f

P
r
o
p
e
l
l
e
d

(
S
P
)









H
i
g
h

w
o
r
k

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y


1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

H
i
g
h

w
o
r
k

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

m
u
l
t
i

c
r
o
p

u
s
e

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,

h
i
g
h

w
o
r
k

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

m
u
l
t
i

c
r
o
p

u
s
e

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
n
g

l
i
I
e


0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

F
o
r

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t


0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

N
o

n
e
e
d

o
I

t
r
a
c
t
o
r

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

T
r
a
c
t
o
r

D
r
i
v
e
n

(
T
D
)









T
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
s

u
s
e
I
u
l

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

I
i
e
l
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

l
o
w

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

3

4
2
.
9

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

4

9
.
5

T
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
s

u
s
e
I
u
l

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

I
i
e
l
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n


0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

2

7
.
7

4

9
.
5

T
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
s

u
s
e
I
u
l

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

I
i
e
l
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

l
e
s
s

l
a
n
d

I
o
r

h
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n


1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

L
o
w

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

n
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

T
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
s

u
s
e
I
u
l

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

I
i
e
l
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

l
o
w

p
r
i
c
e


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1
9

7
3
.
1

1
9

4
5
.
2

T
r
a
c
t
o
r

i
s

u
s
e
I
u
l

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

I
i
e
l
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

,

l
o
w

p
r
i
c
e

a
n
d

l
e
s
s

l
a
b
o
u
r

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

O
t
h
e
r
s
*

2

2
8
.
6

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

3

7
.
1

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

*

O
t
h
e
r
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

e
a
s
y

t
o

r
e
p
a
i
r
,

n
o

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

o
I

S
P

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

a
r
e
a
s
,

a
n
d

s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e

o
I

I
u
n
d



1
5
9

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
4
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
h
e

y
e
a
r

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a


P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

Y
e
a
r

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

1
9
9
0

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

1
9
9
6

0

0

0

0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

1
9
9
7

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

1
9
9
8

0

0

0

0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

1
9
9
9

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

2
0
0
0

0

0

0

0

4

1
5
.
4

4

9
.
5

2
0
0
1

0

0

0

0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

2
0
0
2

0

0

0

0

5

1
9
.
2

5

1
1
.
9

2
0
0
3

0

0

0

0

4

1
5
.
4

4

9
.
5

2
0
0
5

2

2
8
.
6

7

7
7
.
8

2

7
.
7

1
1

2
6
.
2

2
0
0
6

2

2
8
.
6

2

2
2
.
2

2

7
.
7

6

1
4
.
3

2
0
0
7

3

4
2
.
9

0

0

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

A
l
l

y
e
a
r
s

7

1
0
0

9

1
0
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0



1
6
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
5
:

B
r
a
n
d

w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
h
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

p
r
i
c
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

1
o
h
n

d
e
e
r

a
n
d

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

S
o
n
a
l
i
k
a

P
r
e
e
t

F
a
r
m

t
r
a
c
k

S
w
a
r
a
j

A
l
l

M
o
d
e
l



Y
e
a
r

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

N
o
.


R
s
.

L
a
k
h

1
9
9
0

1

4
.
0

2
.
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2
.
4

2
.
0

1
9
9
6

2

8
.
0

2
.
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

4
.
8

2
.
0

1
9
9
7

1

4
.
0

3
.
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2
.
4

3
.
0

1
9
9
8

2

8
.
0

2
.
5
1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

4
.
8

2
.
5
1

1
9
9
9

1

4
.
0

2
.
1
5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2
.
4

2
.
1
5

2
0
0
0

3

1
2
.
0

1
.
8
2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

5
0

9
.
1
5

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

9
.
5

3
.
6
5

2
0
0
1

2

8
.
0

2
.
2
8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

4
.
8

2
.
2
8

2
0
0
2

5

2
0
.
0

2
.
6
3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

1
1
.
9

2
.
6
3

2
0
0
3

4

1
6
.
0

2
.
6
6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

9
.
5

2
.
6
6

2
0
0
5

2

8
.
0

4
.
2
3

6

8
5
.
7

1
0
.
4
7

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1
0
0

1
0
.
5

2

4
0

7
.
9
3

1
1

2
6
.
2

8
.
8
7

2
0
0
6

2

8
.
0

7
.
1
8

1

1
4
.
3

9
.
7
5

0

0

0

1

5
0

9
.
4
0

0

0

0

2

4
0

7
.
7
5

6

1
4
.
3

8
.
1
7

2
0
0
7

0

0
.
0

0

0

0
.
0

0

2

1
0
0

1
1
.
1
1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2
0

1
0
.
4
2

3

7
.
1

1
0
.
8
8

T
o
t
a
l

2
5

1
0
0
.
0

0

7

1
0
0

0

2

1
0
0

0

2

1
0
0

0

1

1
0
0

0

5

0

0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0


T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
6
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
h
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
s

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
H
P
)


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

5
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

5

1
9
.
2

6

1
4
.
3

5
5

1

1
4
.
3

4

4
4
.
4

8

3
0
.
8

1
3

3
1
.
0

6
0

4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

8

3
0
.
8

1
2

2
8
.
6

7
0

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

7
5

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

1
0
5

1

1
4
.
3

2

2
2
.
2

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

1
1
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

2

7
.
7

4

9
.
5

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l

7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

161
Purchase pattern in combines across states

In Gujarat, 100 Iarmers purchased Irom the dealers showing high degree oI dealer inIluence on
the purchase behaviour as discussed earlier. In Maharashtra, dealers (45), other Iarmers in case
oI second hand purchase (22), and company (11) were major sources oI purchase in that
order. Punjab had purchases directly Irom the company premises (61.5) and other Iarmers only
(38.5) (table 7.17).

The cash purchase ratio was highest in Punjab Iollowed by Maharashtra and then Gujarat. The
sales in Gujarat were dependent on the credit rates available while those in Punjab were largely
driven by the cropping season and the urgent/latent need oI the Iarmer. The overall ratio oI cash
to credit sales was 50:50 (table 7.18).

The major source oI credit in Gujarat and Punjab was government bank loans with their share
being 83.33 and 100 respectively in the total credit given to Iarmers Ior the purchase oI
combines. In Maharashtra however, the proportion oI government bank credit was restricted to
only 16.67 while the rest was company (33.3) and cooperative society (50) Iinanced (table
7.19).

In Gujarat and Punjab, almost 100 Iarmers took credit Ior duration between 5 to 10 years (this
being towards 10 in Gujarat and towards 5 in Punjab). In Maharashtra, 83.33 Iarmers took
loans Ior a period oI 3 years or less. 100 Iarmers in Gujarat preIerred to pay installments in 6
months and above. 100 Iarmers in Maharashtra preIerred to pay installments in 6 months and
below. As per the sample, 100 Iarmers in Punjab paid halI yearly installments.In Gujarat and
Maharashtra, the margin money requirement was Rs.100,000 or above Ior almost 100 oI the
Iarmers. In Punjab, most oI the Iarmers had margin money requirement oI less than Rs.1,00,000.
Hypothecation oI combine was taken by the lending agency in almost all cases in Punjab and
83.3 in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Alternatively, mortgage oI land/property was another
security against combine harvestor loan. The major reason Ior taking loan was the shortage oI
Iunds across all states Iollowed by ease to get loan and low interest rates (tales 7.20 to 7.25).

1
6
2

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
7
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

p
l
a
c
e

o
f

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


S
o
u
r
c
e



N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

D
e
a
l
e
r

7

1
0
0

4

4
4
.
4

0

0
.
0

1
1

2
6
.
2

O
t
h
e
r

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

0

0

2

2
2
.
2

1
0

3
8
.
5

1
2

2
8
.
6

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

0

0

2

2
2
.
2

1
6

6
1
.
5

1
8

4
2
.
9

S
h
o
p

k
e
e
p
e
r

0

0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l

7

1
0
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
8
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

i
n


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

C
a
s
h

1

1
4
.
3

3

3
3
.
3

1
7

6
5
.
4

2
1

5
0

C
r
e
d
i
t

6

8
5
.
7

6

6
6
.
7

9

3
4
.
6

2
1

5
0

T
o
t
a
l

7

1
0
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
1
9
:


S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

c
r
e
d
i
t

f
o
r

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

S
o
u
r
c
e

o
f

c
r
e
d
i
t


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

G
o
v
t
.

b
a
n
k
s

5

8
3
.
3

1

1
6
.
7

9
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

1
5
.
0

7
1
.
4

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

I
i
n
a
n
c
e

1

1
6
.
7

2

3
3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

3
.
0

1
4
.
3

C
r
e
d
i
t

c
o
o
p

s
o
c
/
b
a
n
k

0

0
.
0

3

5
0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

3
.
0

1
4
.
3

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
1
.
0

1
0
0
.
0



1
6
3

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
0
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
r
e
d
i
t

p
e
r
i
o
d

f
o
r

c
o
m
b
i
n
e


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
y
e
a
r
s
)


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o
t

I
i
x
e
d

0

0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

3

1

1
6
.
7

3

5
0
.
0

0

0
.
0

4

1
9
.
0

5

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

5

5
5
.
6

5

2
3
.
8

6


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

1

4
.
8

7

1

1
6
.
7

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

9


2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

4

1
9
.
0

1
0


1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

2

9
.
5

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
1
0

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
1
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

c
r
e
d
i
t

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

N
o

o
f

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
e
n
t
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o
t

I
i
x
e
d

0

0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

M
o
n
t
h
l
y

0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y

0

0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

H
a
l
I

y
e
a
r
l
y

3

5
0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

9

1
0
0
.
0

1
3

6
1
.
9

A
n
n
u
a
l
l
y


2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
1

1
0
0
.
0



1
6
4

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
2
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

m
a
r
g
i
n

m
o
n
e
y

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

a
v
a
i
l
i
n
g

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

c
r
e
d
i
t

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

M
a
r
g
i
n

m
o
n
e
y

(

0
0
0

R
s
.
)

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o
n
e

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

2

9
.
5

U
p

t
o

5
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

2

9
.
5

5
1
-
7
5

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

4

4
4
.
4

4

1
9
.
0

7
6
-
1
0
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

1

4
.
8

1
0
1
-
2
0
0

3

5
0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

5

2
3
.
8

2
0
1
-
3
0
0

1

1
6
.
7

2

3
3
.
3

1

1
1
.
1

4

1
9
.
0

~

3
0
0

0

0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
1

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
3
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
a
k
i
n
g

c
r
e
d
i
t

f
o
r

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

R
e
a
s
o
n
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e

o
I

I
u
n
d

5

8
3
.
3

3

5
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

1
7

8
1
.
0

S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e

o
I

I
u
n
d

a
n
d

l
o
w

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

r
a
t
e

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

E
a
s
y

t
o

g
e
t

l
o
a
n

0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e

o
I

I
u
n
d

a
n
d

E
a
s
y

t
o

g
e
t

l
o
a
n


0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e

o
I

I
u
n
d

a
n
d

c
a
s
h

c
r
e
d
i
t

0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
1

1
0
0
.
0



1
6
5

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
4
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
y
p
e

o
f

s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

t
o

a
v
a
i
l

o
f

l
o
a
n

f
o
r

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

T
y
p
e
s

o
f

s
e
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
n
d

m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e


1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

o
I

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

H
y
p
o
t
h
e
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
I

c
o
m
b
i
n
e


0

0
.
0

1

1
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

L
a
n
d

m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

a
n
d

H
y
p
o
t
h
e
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
I

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

5

8
3
.
3

4

6
6
.
7

9

1
0
0
.
0

1
8

8
5
.
7

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
1

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
5
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

a
r
e
a

o
f

l
a
n
d

m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

c
r
e
d
i
t

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


A
r
e
a

(
a
c
r
e
)

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

L
a
n
d

m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

n
o
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d


0

0
.
0

2

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

U
p

t
o

5

1

1
6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
1
.
1

2

9
.
5

6
-
1
0

1

1
6
.
7

2
.
0

3
3
.
3

7
.
0

7
7
.
8

1
0

4
7
.
6

1
1
-
1
5

1

1
6
.
7

2
.
0

3
3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

3

1
4
.
3

1
6
-
2
0

0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
0

1
1
.
1

1

4
.
8

2
1
-
2
5

0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2
6
-
3
0

2

3
3
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

2

9
.
5

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

1

1
6
.
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

1

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

6

1
0
0
.
0

6
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

9
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
1

1
0
0
.
0


166
The rate oI purchase oI accessories oI same brand was zero in Punjab. 100 Iarmers resorted to
buying non-branded accessories, perhaps due to their low cost. In Maharashtra the rate was
66.67. In Gujarat, 28.6 Iarmers did not buy accessories oI the same brand. The proIit margins
on accessories are higher in such machinery than the machinery itselI. Hence, the proIits which a
company would be making in these states would be low (except Ior Maharashtra). Reasons Ior
non-purchase oI the same brand accessories were second hand purchases and high cost oI
original accessories (table7.26).

Apart Irom Maharashtra, where economic consideration was the major reason to buy a combine,
the prime reason was Iarming in Gujarat and Punjab. This might be due to the high land and
labour costs in Maharashtra as compared to Gujarat and Punjab. Brand name and low repair and
maintenance cost Iormed the major chunk oI decision making in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
However, in Punjab, the prime considerations were cleaning and the material oI the combine.
Some other Iactors considered were work eIIiciency, easy to operate, power steering,
engineering and technology, low Iuel consumption, multi crop use, low man power requirements,
no crack, long liIe, shaIts, cross, Iacilities, combine barma, roller, quality oI parts, belt, bearing,
should be all material oI one company, heavy, and resale value (table 7.27 and 7.28).

Although by a very low percentage oI Iarmers, the major problem Iaced was oI late delivery and
late Iittings. Only 10 Iarmers received incentives on the purchase oI combine. In majority oI
cases and across all states, the liIe oI combines was Iound out to be between 6 to 10 years. Also,
around 70 oI the Iarmers had not changed their combines across all states taken together once
purchased (table 7.29 to 7.33).

1
6
7

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
6
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

t
h
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
f

a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

b
r
a
n
d

a
s

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d

a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

Y
e
s

2

2
8
.
6

6

6
6
.
7

0

0
.
0

8

1
9
.
0

N
o

3

4
2
.
9

3

3
3
.
3

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

3
2

7
6
.
2

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

2

2
8
.
6

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l

7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
7
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

R
e
a
s
o
n
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

F
a
r
m
i
n
g

4

5
7
.
1

1

1
1
.
1

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

3
1
.
0

7
3
.
8

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
a
r
m
i
n
g

3

4
2
.
9

2

2
2
.
2

0

0
.
0

5
.
0

1
1
.
9

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

0

0
.
0

5

5
5
.
6

0

0
.
0

5

1
1
.
9

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

l
a
b
o
u
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m


0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0



1
6
8

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
8
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

i
n

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

(
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
)

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

F
a
c
t
o
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

2
1

8
0
.
8

2
3

5
4
.
8

S
o
l
i
d
/
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

1
3

5
0
.
0

1
4

3
3
.
3

B
r
a
n
d

n
a
m
e

3

4
2
.
9

4

4
4
.
4

1

3
.
8

8

1
9
.
0

L
o
w

R
&
M

3

4
2
.
9

2

2
2
.
2

2

7
.
7

7

1
6
.
7

P
r
i
c
e

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

3

1
1
.
5

3

7
.
1

G
o
o
d

w
i
l
l

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

3

7
.
1

O
t
h
e
r
s
*

1

1
4
.
3

6

6
6
.
7

1
1

4
2
.
3

1
8

4
2
.
9

*

O
t
h
e
r
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

w
o
r
k

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

e
a
s
y

t
o

o
p
e
r
a
t
e
,

p
o
w
e
r

s
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

l
o
w

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
,

m
u
l
t
i

c
r
o
p

u
s
e
,

l
o
w

m
a
n

p
o
w
e
r

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

n
o

c
r
a
c
k
,

l
o
n
g

l
i
I
e
,

s
h
a
I
t
s
,

c
r
o
s
s
,

I
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

b
a
r
m
a
,

r
o
l
l
e
r
,

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
I

p
a
r
t
s
,

b
e
l
t
,

b
e
a
r
i
n
g
,

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
l
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

o
I

o
n
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y
,

h
e
a
v
y
,

a
n
d

r
e
s
a
l
e

v
a
l
u
e

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
2
9
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

m
a
i
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

f
a
c
e
d

b
y

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

a
t

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

o
f

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

6

8
5
.
7

8
.
0

8
8
.
9

2
5
.
0

9
6
.
2

3
9

9
2
.
9

L
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

a
n
d

l
a
t
e

I
i
t
t
i
n
g
s

1

1
4
.
3

1

1
1
.
1

1
.
0

3
.
8

3

7
.
1

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
0
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

t
o

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
`


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

Y
e
s

1

1
4
.
3

0

0

3

1
1
.
5

4

9
.
5

N
o

6

8
5
.
7

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
3

8
8
.
5

3
8

9
0
.
5

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

*
T
h
r
e
e

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

c
a
s
h

d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t

o
I

R
s
.

1
0
,
0
0
0

e
a
c
h

a
n
d

o
n
e

I
a
r
m
e
r

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

a

t
r
a
c
t
o
r

c
o
u
p
o
n
.



1
6
9

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
1
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

l
i
f
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

L
i
f
e


(
y
e
a
r
s
)


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

_

5

2

2
8
.
6

1

1
1
.
1

3

1
1
.
5

6

1
4
.
3

6
-
1
0

1

1
4
.
3

5

5
5
.
6

1
9

7
3
.
1

2
5

5
9
.
5

1
1
-
1
5

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

3

1
1
.
5

3

7
.
1

1
6
-
2
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

C
a
n
`
t

s
a
y

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

D
e
p
e
n
d

o
n

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e


0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

3

4
2
.
9

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
2
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

c
h
a
n
g
e


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

D
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

5

1
9
.
2

5

1
1
.
9

D
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

w
o
r
k


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

D
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

r
e
p
a
i
r

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e


0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

2

7
.
7

3

7
.
1

D
e
p
e
n
d
s

o
n

n
e
w

m
o
d
i
I
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

N
o

c
h
a
n
g
e


3

4
2
.
9

8

8
8
.
9

1
7

6
5
.
4

2
8

6
6
.
7

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

4

9
.
5

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0



1
7
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
3
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
s

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d

b
y

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r
s

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l


R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

t
i
m
e


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t


7

1
0
0

9

1
0
0

1
7

6
5
.
4

3
3

7
8
.
6

O
n
e


0

0

0

0

5

1
9
.
2

5

1
1
.
9

T
h
r
e
e

0

0

0

0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

F
o
u
r

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

S
i
x

0

0

0

0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l

7

1
0
0

9

1
0
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0


171
Use of Combine harvester and rental

Average hours oI combine usage was the highest in the Rabi season across all three states. It was
Iollowed by KhariI in Punjab and Maharashtra while by summer season in Gujarat. Per day use
oI combines was between 8 and 12 hours in Punjab and Gujarat. In Maharashtra, per day usage
was on the lower side. In Gujarat and Punjab, the usage was lower than that in Maharashtra. The
weighted average usage in the number oI days per year Ior the three states is given in table 7.34:

Table 7.34: State-wise annual average usage of combine harvestors by owner farmers
State
Annual
combine
usage in
hours
Gujarat 55.5
Maharashtra 90.75
Punjab 50.65

Appendix 7.1 Tables 7.35 to 7.38 give season, crop-wise and per day use oI combines across
states. More than 50 oI this custom combine hiring was Irom within the home state itselI.
Annually, combine was used Ior 41-55 days in general by one-third oI owners, 26-40 hours by
16 Iarmers and 56-70 hours by 19 Iarmers. It was used Ior higher number oI days (~70 days
by 88 owners) in Maharashtra due to custom hiring practice and lesser number oI combines in
the region so Iar (Appendix 7.1 table 7.39). Hiring oI combines was prevalent in Gujarat and
Maharashtra. Around 45 Iarmers in Gujarat and 80 Iarmers oI Maharashtra hired out
combines Ior more than 90 oI their usage (Appendix 7.1 tables 7.40-7.43).
The main costs in custom hiring Ior the owner are diesel and labour. A combine working Ior an
hour consumes seven litres oI diesel. A driver is paid a Ilat Rs 9,000 Ior the season plus an
incentive oI Rs 9 per acre. And, he covers 25-30 acres daily (HBL, 2007).
Fuel Cost: the Iuel costs are higher in Gujarat and Maharashtra. The average annual expenditure
in these states is above one lakh rupees. On the contrary, more than 90 oI Iarmers in Punjab
spend less than 75000 per year (Appendix 7.1 table 7.44).

Repair and maintenance cost: Same as Iuel cost higher in Gujarat and Maharashtra than in
Punjab.
172

Depreciation cost: Highest in Gujarat Iollowed by Maharashtra and then Punjab.

Major problems farmers face in combine operations in various states (table 7.54):
Gujarat: The prime problems included operating diIIiculties, low Iuel eIIiciency, Irequent
breakdown oI parts, and the like
2
.
Maharashtra: Major problems were poor aIter sales service and lack oI availability oI spare
parts.
Punjab: Prime concerns were non availability oI spare parts, high repair costs and some other
problems (Iootnote).

A case study of combine hiring customer

Mr. Yadav Govind Chaudhry is a residence oI Dhruvkheda village oI Shahada block oI
Nandurbar district in Maharashtra. He is a big Iarmer and holds 80 acres oI own cultivable land.
All his land is irrigated. He hires combine Ior Wheat, Mung and Soyabean. He preIers to hire
tractor mounted combine because oI high-tech technology and very good crop cleanliness.
According to him, time savings, timely work, work eIIiciency, Iinishing, and taking Iull
precaution oI Iield operations are the major reasons Ior hiring combine instead oI labour. He
pays a Ilat rate oI Rs 500 per acre Ior any oI the above mentioned crops. According to him, the
labour cost oI harvesting one acre oI Mung is Rs 1200, and oI Wheat Rs. 1500. Labour are not
ready to harvest soyabean. However, wheat harvesting with combine is not proIitable because
Iarmers lose Iodder worth Rs 3000 per acre. But going by the current labour market conditions in
agriculture, use oI combine harvester will be increasing year aIter year.

Combines and labour displacement

A recent study reports that cost oI using combines Ior harvesting wheat was much lower (Rs.
450-500 per acre) than manual harvesting (Rs. 1250 per acre) leading to considerable
displacement oI labour, especially Iemale labour. Similar was the eIIect oI power tillers in case

2
Other problems are more load on engine, high cost oI spare parts, low speed, and more power use oI tractor.
173
oI paddy in Kerala (Jackson and Rao, 2004). The loss oI labour income wa as much as Rs. 800 -
1200 per acre oI wheat harvested (table 7.45).

However, Iarmers consider that the use oI combine helps them not only in saving the labour cost
but also helps them in saving Iood and other entertainment cost (especially tea and smoking)
incurred on them while they hire them. Farmers Ielt that the loss oI Iodder is another issue but
looking to the current occupational change, Iarmers are shiIting Irom less remunerative crops to
more commercial crops and reducing dependence on dairy, they preIer use oI combine instead oI
labour hiring. The government support to labors through providing direct and indirect Iinancial
help in Iorm oI various subsidies Ior Iood, shelter and employment, and rapid industrialization
have leIt the agricultural wage labour work less remunerative and attractive and hence it has
created labour shortage Ior the agriculture.

The usual practice Ior Iarmers is to custom hire the combines which costs Rs 600-650 per acre. II
straw reapers are used, it costs another Rs 500 per trolley. At 1.5 trolleys per acre, it comes to Rs
750. A combine can harvest, thresh and clean the wheat crop oI an acre within 45 minutes. The
leIt-over stalks can be separately recovered using a straw reaper, which again covers an acre
within an hour.

BeIore combines came into vogue, Iarmers manually harvested their crop using sickles. This was
both costly and time-consuming. In sickle harvesting, Iive men are required Irom early morning
to late night to cover an acre. II they are migrants, they have to be given Rs 1,200-1,300. In case
oI local labourers, the demand is 130 kg. oI wheat plus 100 kg oI straw. On top oI this, power-
threshing takes up 3.5-4 hours an acre, costing another Rs 900-1,000 (HBL, 2007).

Table 7.45: State-wise distribution of combine owners by labour replacement by combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Loss of labour income
(Rs./acre)
No of farmers of farmers No of farmers of farmers
800-1000 1 14.3 5 55.6
1001-1200 1 14.3 2 22.2
1601-1800 0 0.0 1 11.1
1801-2000 1 14.3 0 0.0
No response 4 57.0 1 11.1
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0
174
For details oI combine maintenance and operational costs, see tables in appendix 7.2.


In sum, the combine owners were large land holders in Gujarat with average size oI operations
holding being 23 acres and owned holding being 19 acres compared with 14 and 9 acres in
Maharashtra and 15 and 13 acres in Punjab. In Gujarat, no combine owner was smallholder or
even medium holder (10 acres) while in Maharashtra and Punjab there were some small,
medium land holder and even landless persons in Maharshtra had combines.

In Maharashtra, both types oI combines were equally preIerred |TD:SP 55:45|. Punjab and
Gujarat had huge majority oI tractor driven combines over selI propelled. Reasons Ior preIerring
a selI Propelled combine included high work eIIiciency, Iollowed by multi crop use, low
maintenance and long liIe. This version was mostly preIerred by large Iarmers Ior whom
eIIiciency oI Iarm operations was essential to reap economies oI scale. On the other hand, tractor
driven was driven by tractor`s use in other Iield operations. It was, thereIore, logically preIerred
by Iarmers with low land holdings. Other important Iactors were low price, low Iuel and labour
cost and suitable Ior less land area required Ior harvesting. 70 oI the Iarmers in Gujarat and
80 oI the Iarmers in Punjab used combines oI a capacity oI 50-60 HP. This ratio does not hold
Ior Maharashtra where almost 45 oI the Iarmers use combines oI capacity 105-110 HP. The
capacity oI combines was higher in Maharashtra due to predominant use oI these machines Ior
custom hiring there.

In Punjab, popular brand image played a very important role in the purchase decision with 100
Iarmers Iactoring this in their purchase decision. Goodwill, experience oI other Iarmers and
resale value came next with almost the same proportion oI Iarmers giving importance to each oI
these Iactors (around 20). On the other hand, in Gujarat, dealer advice (57.2) and popular
brand image (42.9) inIluenced the purchase decision oI a majority oI Iarmers. Maharashtra
Iarmers went by popular brand image (33.3) and good experience oI other Iarmers (44.4),
though other Iactors also had an inIluence in case oI 77.7 Iarmers. Other Iactors included
aIIordable price, clearance, low maintenance, power steering, high work eIIiciency, local dealer,
easy availability oI spare parts, relationships with company, easy Ior use/driving, Iine cutter,
pressure oI relatives, and dealing.
175

Apart Irom Maharashtra, where economic consideration was the major reason to buy a combine,
the prime reason was Iarming in Gujarat and Punjab. This might be due to the high land and
labour costs in Maharashtra as compared to Gujarat and Punjab. Brand name and low repair and
maintenance cost Iormed the major chunk oI decision making in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
However, in Punjab, the prime considerations were cleaning and the material oI the combine.
Some other Iactors considered were work eIIiciency, easy to operate, power steering,
engineering and technology, low Iuel consumption, multi crop use, low man power requirements,
no crack, long liIe, shaIts, cross, Iacilities, combine barma, roller, quality oI parts, belt, bearing,
should be all material oI one company, heavy, and resale value.

Annually, combine was used Ior 41-55 days in general by one-third oI owners, 26-40 hours by
16 Iarmers and 56-70 hours by 19 Iarmers. It was used Ior higher number oI days (~70 days
by 88 owners) in Maharashtra due to custom hiring practice and lesser number oI combines in
the region so Iar. Hiring oI combines was prevalent in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Around 45
Iarmers in Gujarat and 80 Iarmers oI Maharashtra hired out combines Ior more than 90 oI
their usage.

1
7
6

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

7
.
1


T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
5
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

s
e
a
s
o
n

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

o
f

C
o
m
b
i
n
e
s


U
s
e
s

i
n

h
o
u
r
s

P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r



N
o

u
s
e


1
0
0

1
0
1
-
2
0
0

2
0
1
-
3
0
0

3
0
1
-
4
0
0

4
0
1
-
5
0
0

5
0
1
-
6
0
0

6
0
1
-
7
0
0

7
0
1
-
8
0
0

>

1
0
0
0

T
o
t
a
l


G
u
j
a
r
a
t
-
K
h
a
r
i
f












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

4

1

1

1







7

(
7
0
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s


5
7
.
1

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3








R
a
b
i












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



1

2


4





7

(
3
5
7
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s




1
4
.
3

2
8
.
6


5
7
.
1






S
u
m
m
e
r












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

6









1

7

(
1
7
9
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s


8
5
.
7









1
4
.
3


M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
-
K
h
a
r
i
f












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


1

3

3

1

1





9

(
2
4
7
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s



1
1
.
1

3
3
.
3

3
3
.
3

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
1






R
a
b
i












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s




2

2

1


1

2

1

9

(
5
6
4
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s





2
2
.
2

2
2
.
2

1
1
.
1


1
1
.
1

2
2
.
2

1
1
.
1


S
u
m
m
e
r












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

8



1







9

(
3
3
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s


8
8
.
9



1
1
.
1








P
u
n
j
a
b
-
K
h
a
r
i
f












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



4

1
3

4

3

2




2
6

(
3
0
9
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s




1
5
.
4

5
0
.
0

1
5
.
4

1
1
.
5

7
.
7





R
a
b
i












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



6

1
3

5

1




1

2
6

(
3
3
5
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s




2
3
.
1

5
0
.
0

1
9
.
2

3
.
8




3
.
8


N
o
t
e
:

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

h
o
u
r
s

o
I

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

u
s
e

i
n

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
e
a
s
o
n
.



1
7
7

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
6
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

a
n
n
u
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
s

U
s
e
s

i
n

h
o
u
r
s

P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r



1
0
0
-
2
0
0

2
0
1
-
3
0
0

3
0
1
-
4
0
0

4
0
1
-
5
0
0

5
0
1
-
6
0
0

6
0
1
-
7
0
0

7
0
1
-
8
0
0

8
0
1
-
1
0
0
0

1
0
0
1
-
1
2
0
0

1
2
0
1
-
1
4
0
0

>

1
4
0
0

T
o
t
a
l


G
u
j
a
r
a
t













N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

1



5







1

(
1
7
5
0
)

7

(
6
0
6
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s


1
4
.
3



7
1
.
4







1
4
.
3


M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a













N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



1

2

1




4


1

(
1
5
0
0
)

9

(
8
4
4
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s




1
1
.
1

2
2
.
2

1
1
.
1




4
4
.
4


1
1
.
1


P
u
n
j
a
b














N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



3

6

7

5

4




1

(
2
5
2
0
)

2
6

(
6
4
4
)


I
a
r
m
e
r
s




1
1
.
5

2
3
.
1

2
6
.
9

1
9
.
2

1
5
.
4




3
.
8


A
l
l













N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s

1


4

1
3

8

5

4


4


3

4
2


I
a
r
m
e
r
s


2
.
4


9
.
5

3
1
.
0

1
9
.
0

1
1
.
9

9
.
5


9
.
5


7
.
1


N
o
t
e
:

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

i
n

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

h
o
u
r
s

o
I

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

u
s
e
.



1
7
8

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
7
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

u
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

i
n

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

c
r
o
p
s


U
s
e

i
n


t
i
m
e

P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
s




C
r
o
p
s


N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


N
o

u
s
e


U
p

t
o

1
0

1
1
-
2
0

2
1
-
3
0

3
1
-
4
0

4
1
-
5
0

5
1
-
6
0

6
1
-
7
0

7
1
-
8
0

8
1
-
9
0

9
1
-
1
0
0

T
o
t
a
l


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

W
h
e
a
t














N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


4








1


1

1

7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


5
7
.
1








1
4
.
3


1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3


M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
















N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s








2

2

4

1



9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s








2
2
.
2

2
2
.
2

4
4
.
4

1
1
.
1




G
u
j
a
r
a
t

P
a
d
d
y














N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


4

2


1









7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


5
7
.
1

2
8
.
6


1
4
.
3










M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
















N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



7


1

1








9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



7
7
.
8


1
1
.
1

1
1
.
1









G
u
j
a
r
a
t

S
o
y
a
b
e
a
n














N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


4

2


1









7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


5
7
.
1

2
8
.
6


1
4
.
3










M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
















N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s





1

6

2







9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s





1
1
.
1

6
6
.
7

2
2
.
2








G
u
j
a
r
a
t

O
t
h
e
r

c
r
o
p
s














N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


4

2


1









7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


5
7
.
1

2
8
.
6


1
4
.
3










M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a
















N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



5

3

1









9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s



5
5
.
6

3
3
.
3

1
1
.
1












1
7
9

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
8
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

p
e
r

d
a
y

u
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

P
e
r

d
a
y

u
s
e

(
h
r
s
/
d
a
y
)

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

4
.
0
-
6
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

0

0
.
0

2

4
.
8

6
.
0
1
-
8
.
0

2

2
8
.
6

2

2
2
.
2

0

0
.
0

4

9
.
5

8
.
0
1
-
1
0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

8

3
0
.
8

1
0

2
3
.
8

1
0
.
1
-
1
2
.
0

5

7
1
.
4

0

0
.
0

1
0

3
8
.
5

1
5

3
5
.
7

1
2
.
1
-
1
4
.
0

0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

6

2
3
.
1

9

2
1
.
4

~
1
4
.
0


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
3
9
:


S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

d
a
y
s

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
s

u
s
e
d

i
n

a
n

y
e
a
r

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

C
o
m
b
i
n
e

u
s
e

(
d
a
y
s

)

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


U
p

t
o

2
5

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

2

4
.
8

2
6
-
4
0

2

2
8
.
6

0

0
.
0

5

1
9
.
2

7

1
6
.
7

4
1
-
5
5

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

1
3

5
0
.
0

1
4

3
3
.
3

5
6
-
7
0

2

2
8
.
6

1

1
1
.
1

5

1
9
.
2

8

1
9
.
0

7
1
-
8
5

0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

1

3
.
8

4

9
.
5

8
6
-
1
0
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

0

0
.
0

2

4
.
8

1
0
1
-
1
2
5

0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

1
2
6
-
1
5
0

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

2

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0



1
8
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
0
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

u
s
e

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
n

o
w
n

f
a
r
m


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

U
s
e

i
n


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

u
s
e


0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3


5

2

2
8
.
6

3

3
3
.
3

6
-
1
0

1

1
4
.
3

2

2
2
.
2

1
1
-
2
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2
1
-
3
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

T
o
t
a
l


0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
1
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

c
u
s
t
o
m

h
i
r
i
n
g

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
s


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

U
s
e

i
n


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

7
0
-
8
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

8
1
-
9
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

9
1
-
9
5

1

1
4
.
3

1

1
1
.
1

~

9
5

2

2
8
.
6

6

6
6
.
7

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
2
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

p
l
a
c
e
s

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

h
i
r
i
n
g


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
l
a
c
e
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

(
S
u
r
a
t
)

1

1
4
.
3

0


M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

(
N
a
n
d
u
r
b
a
r
)

0

0

5

5
5
.
6

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

a
n
d

A
n
d
h
r
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h


0

0

1

1
1
.
1

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

a
n
d

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

2

2
8
.
6

3

3
3
.
3

N
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0


1
8
1

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
3
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

c
u
s
t
o
m

h
i
r
i
n
g

i
n
s
i
d
e

a
n
d

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

s
t
a
t
e


I
n
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

s
t
a
t
e

O
u
t
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

s
t
a
t
e

U
s
e

i
n


t
i
m
e

P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
s



U
p

t
o

2
5

2
6
-
5
0

5
1
-
7
5

7
6
-
1
0
0

T
o
t
a
l



N
o

u
s
e


U
p

t
o

2
5

2
6
-
5
0

5
1
-
7
5

7
6
-
1
0
0

T
o
t
a
l



G
u
j
a
r
a
t












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


2


5

7

5


1

1


7


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


2
8
.
6


7
1
.
4


7
1
.
4


1
4
.
3

1
4
.
3



M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a













N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


1

1

7

9

5

2

1

1


9


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


1
1
.
1

1
1
.
1

7
7
.
8


5
5
.
6

2
2
.
2

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
1



P
u
n
j
a
b













N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s




2
6

2
6

2
4

2




2
6


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s




1
0
0
.
0


9
2
.
3

7
.
7





A
l
l












N
o

o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


3

1

3
8

4
2

3
4

4

2

2


4
2


o
I

I
a
r
m
e
r
s


7
.
1

2
.
4

9
0
.
5


8
1
.
0

9
.
5

4
.
8

4
.
8





1
8
2

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
4
4
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

c
r
o
p

w
i
s
e

p
e
r

a
c
r
e

r
e
n
t
a
l

i
n
c
o
m
e

(
c
h
a
r
g
e
)

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

i
n

2
0
0
6


G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

P
e
r

a
c
r
e

r
e
n
t
a
l

c
h
a
r
g
e
s

(
R
s
.
)

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

W
h
e
a
t










3
0
0

4

5
7
.
1

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

4

9
.
5

3
5
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

4
0
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

4
5
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

7

2
6
.
9

8

1
9
.
0

5
0
0

1

1
4
.
3

5

5
5
.
6

1
5

5
7
.
7

2
1

5
0
.
0

5
5
0

0

0
.
0

2

2
2
.
2

3

1
1
.
5

5

1
1
.
9

6
0
0

2

2
8
.
6

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

4
.
8

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

P
a
d
d
y










N
o

p
a
d
d
y

h
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g


2

2
8
.
6

8

8
8
.
9

0

0
.
0

1
0

2
3
.
8

4
0
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

4

1
5
.
4

4

9
.
5

4
5
0

4

5
7
.
1

1

1
1
.
1

1
6

6
1
.
5

2
1

5
0
.
0

5
0
0

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

6

2
3
.
1

7

1
6
.
7

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

O
t
h
e
r

c
r
o
p
s
`









N
o

h
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
I

o
t
h
e
r

c
r
o
p
s


6

8
5
.
7

5

5
5
.
6

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

3
7

8
8
.
1

5
0
0

0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

0

0
.
0

3

7
.
1

7
0
0

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

5
0
0
-
8
5
0

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

*

O
t
h
e
r

c
r
o
p
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

B
a
j
r
i
,

M
u
n
g
,

S
o
y
a
b
e
a
n
,

M
a
i
z
e
,

K
a
r
a
d
i
,

S
u
n
I
l
o
w
e
r
,

a
n
d

T
u
r

(
p
i
g
e
o
n

p
e
a
)


183
Appendix 7.2
Table 7.46: State-wise distribution of combine owners by adequate work for combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Getting
enough
work
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Yes 1 14.3 4 44.4 0 0.0 5 11.9
No* 0 0.0 5 55.6 26 100.0 31 73.8
Subject
to crop
pattern
1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
Expected
to get
enough
work
1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
No
response
4 57.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 9.5
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0
*Combine owners in Maharashtra did not get enough work because oI market competition.

Table 7.47: State-wise distribution of combine owners by seasonal repair cost of combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab Repair cost
(Rs.)
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Kharif
None 0 0 1 11.1 0 0
6,000-10,000 0 0 3 33.3 0 0
11,000-15,000 0 0 4 44.4 0 0
16,000-20,000 0 0 1 11.1 0 0
Total 0 0 9 100.0 0 0
Rabi
11,000-15,000 0 0 3 33.3 0 0
16,000-20,000 0 0 2 22.2 0 0
21,000-25,000 0 0 1 11.1 0 0
30,000-35,000 0 0 2 22.2 0 0
55,000 0 0 1 11.1 0 0
Total 0 0 9 100.0 0 0
Seasonal
(Kharif /Rabi)

None 4 57.1 0 0 0 0.0
_ 5,000 0 0.0 0 0 4 15.4
6,000-10,000 0 0.0 0 0 8 30.8
11,000-15,000 1 14.3 0 0 8 30.8
16,000-20,000 1 14.3 0 0 4 15.4
20,000-25,000 1 14.3 0 0 2 7.7
Total 7 100.0 0 0 26 100.0
184

Table 7.48: State-wise distribution of combine owners by annual repair cost of combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Repair
cost
(Rs.)
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
None 4 57.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 9.5
_ 10,000 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 11.5 3 7.1
11,000-
20,000
0 0.0 0 0.0 8 30.8 8 19.0
21,000-
30,000
0 0.0 4 44.4 9 34.6 13 31.0
31,000-
40,000
0 0.0 2 22.2 4 15.4 6 14.3
40,000-
50,000
0 0.0 2 22.2 2 7.7 4 9.5
51,000-
60,000
0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 2.4
100,000 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
No
response
2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.8
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

Table 7.49: State-wise distribution of combine owners by major cost of combine operation
(Fuel cost)
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Rs in
Lakh
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
0.26-
0.50
0 0.0 0 0.0 14 53.8 14 33.3
0.51-
0.75
1 14.3 0 0.0 10 38.5 11 26.2
0.76-
1.0
1 14.3 1 11.1 2 7.7 4 9.5
1.01-
1.50
4 57.1 4 44.4 0 0.0 8 19.0
1.51-
2.00
0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 2.4
2.01-
2.50
0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 2.4
2.51-
3.00
0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0.0 2 4.8
3.51-
4.00
1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

185

Table 7.50: State-wise distribution of combine owners by major cost of operation (Repair
and maintenance cost)
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All R&M
cost
Thousand
Rs.
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Up to 10 1 14.3 0 0.0 12 46.2 13 31.0
11-20 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 46.2 12 28.6
21-30 1 14.3 4 44.4 2 7.7 7 16.7
31-40 1 14.3 2 22.2 0 0.0 3 7.1
41-50 0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0.0 2 4.8
50-100 1 14.3 1 11.1 0 0.0 2 4.8
No
response
3 42.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 7.1
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

Table 7.51: State-wise distribution of combine owners by annual operating cost of combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All Operating
cost Rs.
000
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Up to 10 3 42.9 0 0.0 4 15.4 7 16.7
11-20 2 28.6 0 0.0 13 50.0 15 35.7
21-30 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4
31-40 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
41-50 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8 1 2.4
51-75 0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0.0 2 4.8
76-100 0 0.0 3 33.3 0 0.0 3 7.1
101-150 1 14.3 3 33.3 0 0.0 4 9.5
151-200 0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 2.4
No cost 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 30.8 8 19.0
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0













186

Table 7.52: State-wise distribution of combine owners by depreciation cost of combine
Gujarat Maharashtra Punjab All
Depreciation
Rs. lakh
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
No of
farmers
of
farmers
Up to 0.25 0 0.0 2 22.2 3 11.5 5 11.9
0.26-0.50 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 34.6 9 21.4
0.51-0.75 0 0.0 1 11.1 3 11.5 4 9.5
0.76-1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 23.1 6 14.3
1.01-1.50 1 14.3 3 33.3 1 3.8 5 11.9
1.51-2.00 1 14.3 2 22.2 1 3.8 4 9.5
2.01-2.50 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2.51-3.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8 1 2.4
No response 5 71.4 1 11.1 2 7.7 8 19.0
Total 7 100.0 9 100.0 26 100.0 42 100.0

Table 7.53: Insurance cost of combine in Maharashtra
Insurance premium (Rs.000) No of farmers of farmers
Up to 5 4 44.4
6-10 1 11.1
11-15 3 33.3
30 1 11.1
Total 9 100.0

1
8
7

T
a
b
l
e

7
.
5
4
:

S
t
a
t
e
-
w
i
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
w
n
e
r
s

b
y

m
a
j
o
r

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

f
a
c
e

i
n

c
o
m
b
i
n
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

M
a
h
a
r
a
s
h
t
r
a

P
u
n
j
a
b

A
l
l

R
e
a
s
o
n
s


N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s


o
f

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

N
o

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

1

1
4
.
3

3

3
3
.
3

1
9

7
3
.
1

2
3

5
4
.
8

N
o
n
-
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s

0

0
.
0

3

3
3
.
3

1

3
.
8

4

9
.
5

H
i
g
h
e
r

r
e
p
a
i
r

c
o
s
t


0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

P
o
o
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s
.

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

2

7
.
7

2

4
.
8

P
o
o
r

a
I
t
e
r

s
a
l
e
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

(
g
e
a
r

a
n
d

c
e
n
t
r
e

p
i
n
)

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

I
r
e
q
u
e
n
t

b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

o
I

d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
s

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

O
t
h
e
r
s
*

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

3
.
8

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

I
r
e
q
u
e
n
t

b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

o
I

d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
s


1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

L
o
w

I
u
e
l

e
I
I
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

H
i
g
h

I
u
e
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
r
e
q
u
e
n
t

b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

o
I

d
i
I
I
e
r
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
s

1

1
4
.
3

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

P
o
o
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s

a
n
d

n
o
n
-
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

P
o
o
r

a
I
t
e
r

s
a
l
e
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,

n
o
n
-
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s


0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

N
o
n
-
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

0

0
.
0

1

1
1
.
1

0

0
.
0

1

2
.
4

T
o
t
a
l


7

1
0
0
.
0

9

1
0
0
.
0

2
6

1
0
0
.
0

4
2

1
0
0
.
0

*
o
t
h
e
r
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
o
r
e

l
o
a
d

o
n

e
n
g
i
n
e
,

h
i
g
h

c
o
s
t

o
I

s
p
a
r
e

p
a
r
t
s
,

l
o
w

s
p
e
e
d
,

a
n
d

m
o
r
e

p
o
w
e
r

u
s
e

o
I

t
r
a
c
t
o
r

188
Chapter 8
Marketing of MIS Equipment in India: Case Studies from Gujarat

Introduction

The marketing oI micro irrigations equipment in India where 60 cropped area is rainIed is
a mystery as despite shortage oI water and crucial role oI irrigation in Iarm livelihoods,
Iarmers are reluctant to adopt micro irrigation technology. It is in this context that the
chapter examines the case oI promotion by a state agency and marketing by private
companies in the state oI Gujarat as one where public and private sectors attempt to
promote the market Ior micro irrigation equipment.

8.1 Promoting micro-irrigation- Case of Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd.
(GGRCL)

Precursor
ChieI Minister oI Gujarat announced Iormation oI GGRCL, on 13.01.2005 during closing
ceremony oI vibrant Gujarat 2005. GGRCL was established on the basis oI a GR No.
PRCH-102005-497-N dated 09.05.2005 circulated by the state government in 2005. GSFC
had a registered company engaged in agricultural processing since 1991 which later became
deIunct and was revived on the name oI GGRCL. The company is governed by the state
irrigation department 'Narmada water supply and water resources development and
Kalpsar department. All GGRCL policies and Iunctions are monitored and guided by
concerned government departments, GSFC, GNFC, and GAIC. These three GSFC, GNFC
and GAIC have equity share in a ratio oI 45:45:10. Nevertheless, GSFC management sees
GGRCL as an added burden on GSFC. GGRCL has a vision to provide proIessional
services on MIS coupled with required equipments and essential agro-inputs to the Iarmers
oI Gujarat, either outsourced or selI produced to bring 2
nd
green revolution in consonance
with the agricultural policy oI Gujarat vision 2010 so as to save water and energy, besides
multiple beneIits to improve agricultural productivity and Iarmers` prosperity at large.

189
The state government has deployed managerial staII and higher cadre oIIicers Irom various
government departments on deputation. The Iield staII is recruited on contractual
assignment and hence the company does not have any personnel liabilities (table 8.1).

Table 8.1: Staff position of GGRCL
Position Numbers
MD 01
Marketing managers, (one each in agriculture, technical and marketing) 03
StaII members, oI which 17 are posted in the Iield across the state. 42
Joint ChieI Executive OIIicer 01
OSD (oIIicer on special duty) 01
Source: GGRCL, Baroda

8.1.1 Financial assistance and subsidy
The state government has allocated Rs. 1500 crore Ior the company to promote MIS on a
large scale within stipulated time period by Iollowing target based approach. Annual budget
oI the GGRCL is Rs. 180 crore. However, Rs. 165 crore is central allocation and matching
amount has to be allocated by the state government and together it will become 330 crore
and equal amount would be contributed by participating Iarmers totaling Rs 660 crore.

Central government has Iloated several subsidy schemes Ior MIS under various
programmes sponsored by diIIerent government departments. All subsidies available under
various departmental schemes beIore Iormation oI GGRCL are now clubbed together and a
uniIorm package oI subsidy is declared Ior all Iarmers irrespective oI their Iarm size, caste,
class, gender or any other categories to ease the complexities involved in availing the
subsidy. Overall, central government share oI subsidy would be approximately 40 in a
unit cost oI MIS and the rest 10 is contributed by the state government and 50 by
participating Iarmers. Over all share oI central v/s state government subsidy works out to be
42 v/s 58.

On line drip, inline drip, impact sprinkler and porous pipe MIS systems are approved by
GoG Ior subsidy purpose under GGRCL. Impact sprinkler is a mini Iorm oI sprinkler.
Besides these MIS systems, conventional drip, and pop-up sprinkler Ior landscaping and
ornamental cultivation are approved Ior subsidy. Sprinklers heads are getting converted
Irom metal to plastics. An average cost oI a sprinkler system is Rs. 19,000 per ha and Ior a
drip system is up to Rs. 125,000 per ha.
190


MIS package
The package oI MIS includes MIS system oI buyer`s choice, insurance oI MIS and its buyer
(equal to MIS cost except natural death) as well, and aIter sale services such as
agronomical, system maintenance and Iertigation. GGRCL has Iixed up per ha unit cost oI
MIS. The unit cost oI MIS includes equipment cost, 5 transportation charges, installation
charges, 5 management Iees, insurance premium Ior the next 5 years and cost oI aIter sale
services which comes to Rs. 1250 per hectare and all other taxes applicable in the area oI
MIS installation. GGRCL has entered into an agreement with New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. with regards to insurance coverage.

8.1.2 GGRCL Modus Operandi
GGRCL undertook a pilot experiment in 30 hectares land involving 56 Iarmers near Padra
oI Vadodara district and in Palanpur Taluka oI Banaskantha District. Based on the
experience gained Irom the pilot project, a standard business modality has been established
to implement the project statewide. Stepwise procedure oI MIS application and sanction to
avail subsidy is thoroughly described hereunder.
1. Application Iorms
2. Scrutinization & registration oI application by GGRCL
3. Approval oI cost & design and issuance oI work order Ior MIS installation
4. Laying down oI MIS on Iarmers' Iields
5. Third party inspection and submission oI bills by MIS supplier
6. Third party inspection
7. Insurance coverage
8. Payment
9. Payment (Agronomical charges)

Application Iorms are available Irom GSFC/GNFC Iield OIIices, GGRCL website,
District/Taluka Agil. OIIicer, Banks, GWRDC oIIices, SSNNL and GAIC oIIices, and
network oI MIS suppliers. Loanee Iarmers submit the Iilled up application Iorm to the bank
Ior NOC and loan sanction and banks send it to GGRCL while non loanee Iarmers directly
sent it to GGRCL Ior registration. AIter registration GGRCL direct MIS suppliers to initiate
the process oI soil and water testing, survey and designing and preparing cost estimate. MIS
suppliers prepare techno-economic report and take Iarmers consent on cost and design.
ThereaIter, work order is issued to MIS supplier Ior the installation. Third party agreement
takes place among Iarmer, GSFC depot and MIS supplier. Collection oI 5 oI MIS cost as
191
management charges Irom Iarmers and diIIerence amount Irom Iarmers in case oI non
loanee applicant. It is Iollowed by laying down oI system by MIS supplier which is
Iollowed by third party inspection and MIS insurance and JPA insurance oI equal cost to
MIS. Third party inspection includes physical veriIication including visual / dimension
check oI all items received at various Iarmers site as per IS speciIications Ior installation oI
MIS on Iarmers` Iields, veriIication oI actual quantity oI various items and accessories used
Ior installation oI MIS at Iarmers` Iields compared to approved design and estimate by the
Iarmers and GGRCL, veriIication oI trial run and above activities are taken simultaneously.
MIS supplier then submit the bills to GGRCL with supporting documents such as Iarmers
acknowledgement, third party inspection report and two copies oI subsidy claim Iorm.
GGRCL releases 25 oI MIS cost estimate to MIS supplier as an advance on approval oI
GGRCL against PerIorma invoice, and 75 Iinal payment against bill oI MIS and on
approval by GGRCL. Subsidy - 50 oI the cost or Rs 50,000/ha whichever is less - is
transIerred along with bills oI MIS Supplier. 60 oI the agronomical charges are paid aIter
7 months on approval by GGRCL and the rest 40 are paid aIter 14 months to MIS
supplier. Banks release payment to loanee Iarmers and GGRCL release payments to non
loanee Iarmers.

8.1.3 Promotion
GGRCL is relying on networking to promote MIS. It takes help oI key government
institutions and their oIIicials such as Panchayats, DDOs, Collectors, and other district
authorities because oI their well established inIrastructural and logistical Iacilities. Apart
Irom these government institutions, it also takes help oI GSFC and GNFC depots spread
over the entire state. GGRCL wants to get support Irom NGOs and it approached some
selected NGOs such as AKRSP (I), Ambuja Cement Foundation (ACF), Kachchh
Navnirman, etc. However, GGRCL experienced interest clash between NGOs and GGRCL
and hence it could not get their support. GGRCL experienced that working with more
numbers oI government departments creates more problems. GGRCL is taking help oI
media in advertising and promoting MIS. Radio, TV, Exhibitions, Fairs, wall paintings,
tractor painting, MIS suppliers are major media oI communication to promote MIS.
GGRCL has established collaboration with state agricultural universities and Krushi Vigyan
Kendras (KVKs) Ior establishing MIS demonstration Iarms.

192
Farmers` Iinancial liquidity crunch is a major problem in MIS promotion. Besides, higher
Bank interest, cumbersome bank procedure, delay tactics oI bank oIIicials, hypothecation
and mortgaging oI assets are major problems. As per the RBI norms, no margin money is
required to avail the bank Iinance up to an amount oI rupees 50,000. However, Banks do
not comply with this norm and insist collateral and security money Irom all categories oI
Iarmers who seek bank Iinance.

Fig 8.1: Flow Chart for Installation of MIS

Self finance (non-Loanee)
Submission oI design and cost estimation by the supplier & release oI Work Order
(4 days)

Tri-party agreement (TPA), Collection oI Management Charge/DiIIerence
Amount, Submission oI PerIorma Invoice Ior advance payment (5 days)

Payment oI Advance by GGRCL (4 days)

Installation & trial run oI MIS, Issuance oI Insurance CertiIicate, Submission oI
Final Bill (15 days)

Payment oI Balance Amount by GGRCL (4 days)

Total Cycle period is 32 days Ior selI Iinance case.

Bank Finance (Loanee)
Submission oI design and cost estimation by the supplier & release oI Work Order
(4 days)

Tri-party agreement (TPA), Collection oI Management Charge/DiIIerence Amount,
Submission oI PerIorma Invoice Ior advance payment (4 days)

Payment oI Advance by Bank (10 days)

Installation & trial run oI MIS, Issuance oI Insurance CertiIicate, Submission oI Final
Bill (15 days)

Payment oI Balance Amount by Bank (10 days)

Total Cycle period is 43 days in case oI Bank Iinance by Applicant/Farmer


193
GGRCL does not interIere in bank operation but its oIIicials continuously interact with
bank oIIicials to speed up the Iinance process and to make the bank procedure easy and
smooth going. In the context, GGRCL organizes quarterly meeting with bank oIIicials oI
concerned lead banks. GGRCL observed that Sabarkantha district cooperative bank has
developed a good approach and working modality to Iinance MIS Iarmers.

Among all sugar cooperatives, Kodinar sugar cooperative has declared an incentive scheme
oI Rs 50 per tonnes oI sugarcane production to promote MIS as it is water intensive crop.
However, in a major belt oI sugarcane i.e. south Gujarat, no sugar cooperative is coming
Iorward to extend its support to promote MIS in sugarcane because oI higher level oI
political interIerence.

Fig 8.2: Network of Agencies for MI promotion in Gujarat



Source: GGRCL, Baroda.

Farmer focused scheme
GGRCL once oIIered MIS winding machine worth Rs. 7,200 to Iarmers who purchased
MIS Ior minimum 5 hectares oI land at a time. In the last year, GGRC declared oII season
incentive scheme Rs. 500 per ha, especially in management charges Ior Iarmers.
GGRCL
nodal agency
All
departments oI
Ministry oI
agriculture oI
GoG
Agricultural
inIormation
centre
Bank
For loan Iacility
GSFC/GNFC
Guidance on agricultural
inIormation
Insurance coverage
Maintenance oI
equipments Ior the 5
years
Assessment through
neutral agency
194

8.1.4 Registration of MIS companies and quality control of MIS products
It takes registration Iees oI Rs. 100,000 Irom MIS companies. Till today, GGRCL has 26
registered MIS companies and the registration process oI another 5 companies is under
progress. Flexibility and transparency are the beauty oI the GGRCL. It has appointed
independent inspection authority (multimedia and SGS) Ior third party inspection oI MIS
installation work carried out by registered MIS companies. The third party inspection
involves physical veriIication oI MIS components, parts and material as per IS
speciIications with compared to the approved design and estimate and veriIication oI trial
run.

GGRCL has also appointed GIRDC, CIPE&T and GERI Ior technical inspection oI Iactory
units oI registered MIS companies. Registered companies have to comply with and meet ISI
standards in manuIacturing MIS equipments. The independent technical team Irom
appointed agencies regularly visits manuIacturing units oI the registered companies at six
months interval to oversee and inspect manuIacturing process. It has also appointed
Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) Ior economic analysis oI MIS and has appointed
two NGOs (Viksat and Prakruti in Gujarat) to study socioeconomic impact oI MIS.

8.1.5 MIS coverage under the project
SubsurIace drip system is not accepted in Gujarat because oI smaller land size and crop
diversity problems. But above surIace drip system is more popular in Gujarat. Farm size,
crop pattern and Iinancial liquidity are major inIluencing Iactors in selection oI MIS.
Among the total area covered under the GGRCL promoted MIS in 2006-07, 67 land area
was under drip system and 33 land area was under sprinkler system. Sprinkler system is
more suitable Ior Groundnut, wheat, mustard, and pulses. Drip system is more suitable Ior
the area experiencing water shortage and also Ior potato, cotton, banana and all horticultural
crops. Acceptance oI MIS is higher in resource crunch areas. However, economic
aIIordability is also a major issue in resource crunch areas such as Dang, Dahod,
Panchmahal, Narmada, and Bharuch in increasing acceptance oI MIS. Pockets like S. K., B.
K. and Junagadh have intensive area under MIS. Pockets like Dehgam (S.K.) and Navagam
Nayka (Kheda), and Mandvi (Kachchh) have large area under drip system. GGRCL has two
types oI Iarmers, loanee and non loanee Iarmers. Out oI total MIS cases in 2006-07, 33
were loanee cases and 67 were non loanee cases.
195


Table 8.2: Major pockets covered under MIS in Gujarat, 2006-07
Major pockets Drip (Land in ha
)
Sprinklers (Land in
ha)
Sabarkantha (S.K.) 2626 NA
Kachchh 2186 NA
Banaskantha (B.K.) 1733 626
Source: GGRCL, Baroda, Gujarat

MIS was Iormally introduced in 1991 in Gujarat. Since then 25,000 ha land was brought
under MIS until GGRCL intervention. Approximately, 27,000 ha land area (12,000 ha in
the Iirst year and 15,000 ha in the second year) is additionally brought under MIS across the
state so Iar within two years oI GGRCL establishment. GGRCL MD had an opinion that
one can monitor and check physical presence oI installed MIS in the Iield aIter GGRCL
intervention, but it was very diIIicult to monitor and physically check installed MIS in the
Iield prior to GGRCL. GoG target is to cover 100,000 ha per year under MIS. However,
because oI limited human power resources and other limited resources, GGRCL Iinds it
very diIIicult and challenging to achieve the set target. GGRCL employees observed the
growth oI the GGRCL as Iollows:

First year awareness building by concept selling and clearing doubts oI Iarmers
Second year conIidence building
Third year - active promotion oI MIS

Rising cost oI electricity and increasing power shortage (electricity) Ior agriculture are
major Iactors that would determine Iuture growth oI MIS in the state.
8.2 MIS equipment companies

8.2. 1. 1ain Irrigation

Company profile:
Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., based at Jalgaon, is a manuIacturer oI Drip and Sprinkler
Irrigation Systems and Components, PVC, Polyethylene (HDPE, MDPE) & Polypropylene
Piping Systems, Plastic Sheets (PVC & PC sheets), Dehydrated Onions and Vegetables,
Processed Fruits, Tissue Culture, Hybrid & GraIted Plants, Greenhouses, Poly and Shade
196
Houses, Bio-Iertilizers, Solar Water Heating Systems and Solar Photovoltaic Appliances
(Solar lighting systems). The company was established in 1982. It is a public limited
company. Beginning in 1989, it toiled and struggled to pioneer water-management through
Micro Irrigation in India. It is the world`s second largest MIS equipment manuIacturing
industry aIter Naan oI USA which is a world leader. It is also into Iood processing and
contract Iarming oI onion, other vegetables and Iruits since 1994. It has employee strength
oI 3000 (JISL, 2004). Today with over 7000 committed employees strength worldwide, it
has established its leadership in diverse products like Micro & Sprinkler Irrigation,
Agricultural Inputs, Agro-Processed Products, Plastic Pipes & Sheets. Out oI the total staII,
4000 employees are devoted Ior agricultural activities with 300 technical personnel.

Product profile
It manuIactures 98 PVC products oI MIS and the rest 2 , especially iron bolts and nuts
are bought Irom domestic market. It has collaboration with bolts and nuts manuIacturing
units in India. It also has about 25 to 30 registered suppliers oI bolts and nuts. The company
design appropriate modern MIS considering soil, crop and climate relationship and water
requirements. It is manuIacturing only ISI products oI very high quality. All divisions oI the
company are ISO-9001-2001 accredited by RWTUV, Germany. Irrigation, Plastic Piping &
Plastic Sheet divisions are ISO-9001:2001 & ISO-14001:2004 accredited by RWTUV,
Germany. The company`s main manuIacturing plant is located at Jalgaon in Maharashtra. It
also has other manuIacturing plants located at AP, Karnataka, Coimbatore and MP and is
planning to install a new plant in Gujarat. The plant at MP is not Iunctioning. It is annually
processing over 1,00,000 MT oI diIIerent polymers. The company keeps stock oI their MIS
products at manuIacturing plants, depots and dealers` place and assembles them at Iarms.
The processing capacity oI MIS products and their processes are described in successive
paragraphs.

Drip irrigation - capacity and process

Production capacity: 16644 M.T. Extrusion (on-line and in-line)
2640 M.T. Moulded parts
Extrusion lines: 16
Injection moulding machine: 32
Polymer processed: LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, MDPE, PPCP, ABS, POM, PVC, NYLON

Process
197
On-line: LLDPE extruded using co-extrusion processes Ior multilayer polytube. Second
extruder used Ior making yellow colour twin stripes as its registered trademark.

In line: During extrusion Turbo in-line emitters are inserted inside the tube at pre-
determined intervals.

Moulded parts: Emitters, Poly/PVC Iittings, valves and various components oI MIS are
moulded in-house using diIIerent polymers on close looped micro-processor controlled
injection moulding machines.

Filtration and Iertigation equipments: ManuIacture oI plastic and metal screen Iilters, disc
Iilters, media Iilters, sand separators and Iertigation tanks.

Application and features

Product Range Standard Application
On-line tubes
(polytubes)
up to 32 mm IS: 12786,
AS2698, 1&
ISO: 8779
Orchards, Tree crops
In-line tubes
(Emitting pipes)
6,12,16, 20
mm
IS: 13488,
ISO: 9261
Row crops, Field crops
Oval hoses 10 to 110
mm
ASAE S:435 Row crops, Field crops
Online emitters PC,
NPC & Anti leak
2, 4, 8, 14,
16 & 25 lph
IS: 13487 Orchards, Tree crops
In-line Emitters PC
& NPC
1.3, 1.6, 2,
2.6, 3 & 4
lph
IS: 13487 Row crops, Field crops
Jets, Sprayers,
Foggers
up to 45 lph in house Tree crops, Field crops,
Row crops Nurseries and
Green houses
Mini Sprinklers up to 110 lph in house Tree crops, Field crops,
Row crops Nurseries and
Green houses
Bubblers: PC &
Adj. Flow
9 & 15 lpm in house Shrubs, Trees
Source: JISL, Baroda

Salient features:
Increase crop yields and saves water
UseIul even Ior problematic terrains, soil and water
Improved pest, diseases and weed control
198
EIIective Ior orchard, tree crops, agroIorestry crops, Iield crops, vegetables, pulses, oil
seeds, sugarcane, cotton and other row crops.


Sprinklers irrigation - capacity and process

Production capacity: 5256 M.T. (QRC pipes and Iittings)
1000000 Nos (sprinkler nozzles)
Extrusion lines: 2
Injection moulding machines: 5
Butt-Iusion welding machines: 20

Process:
HDPE granules used Ior extrusion oI pipes and injection moulding oI Iittings. Metal risers
and sprinklers are Iixed on saddles.

Application and Features:
Product Range Standard Application
Sprinklers
pipes
50 to 180 mm
(2.5 to 16
kg/cm
2
)
IS: 14151 &
IS: 4984
Sprinkler irrigation and other
water conveyance uses
Impact
sprinklers
25 to 43 lpm
(2.5 to 6 kg/
cm
2)

IS:12232 Field crops and closely spaced low
income Iield crops
Floppy
sprinklers
300 to 950 lph
(2 to 6 kg/cm
2)

in-house Field crops & closely spaced row
crops
Rainguns* 1.3 to 25 lps (2
to 7 kg/cm
2)

in-house Field crops & closely spaced row
crops, Sports Iield irrigation and
Dust suppression
Pop-up Rotors
and Sprays*
0.01 to 4.4 lps
(2 to 7 kg/cm
2)

in-house Landscapes, GolI courses and
Sports Iield irrigation
*Part oI the range, only marketing (Source: JISL, Baroda)

Salient features:
Unique, quick-connect joint design ensures positive locking and leak-prooI joints
Resistant to UV Rays & Impact
Suitable Ior extreme site conditions

Other high tech agri products oI Jain Drip irrigation system includes poly tubes, drip lines,
drip tapes, drippers, spray heads and jets, poly Iittings, Iiltration and Iertigation equipments
and accessories; and Jain Sprinkler irrigation system include HDPE pipes, Iittings, risers,
nozzles and spray-heads. It also includes products oI controlled Iarming such as green
houses, shade houses, and tunnels.
199

The design liIe oI company`s MIS products (drip system, sprinkler system and rain gun) is
50 years; however, Irom experience, average liIe oI these products is believed to be 10
years. But company gives only 5 years warranty.

The market price oI MIS products varies Irom product to product. It ranges Irom Rs. 65,000
to 1,50,000 per hectare Ior drip with average Rs 1 lakh, and Rs. 20,000 per hectare Ior
traditional sprinklers. The cost oI impact sprinkler varies Irom crop to crop. For example, it
is Rs 16,000 per hectare Ior cotton and Rs. 85,000 per hectare Ior potato. The market price
depends on government programmes like GGRCL and crop type.

Sales, competition and market
The annual turnover is around Rs. 700 crore, oI which MIS share is Rs. 400 crore. It
increased Irom Rs.650 crore to Rs.1400 crore over the last three year`s period. The
company`s sale turnover increased overtime and in the last year it was increased by 40 to 50
. Water shortages, energy squeeze, expansion oI area under MIS, product range
expansion, encroaching up on share oI unorganized sector are major reasons Ior increasing
turnover. Till today, it brought approximately 12,000 to 13,000 hectares oI land under its
MIS. OI which, the last year share was 7000 hectare in which Drip and sprinkler
contributes 70 and 30 , respectively. It has 90 - 95 individual and 5 - 10
institutional buyers. Among its buyers, 80 are new system buyers and 20 are system
replacement buyers.

It has product marketing collaboration with Ioreign companies. Naan in USA is one among
them. The share oI import coming Irom these Ioreign companies is hardly less than one
in its total product sale in India. The company has about 55 market share in India & it
also exports its MIS products to more than 20 countries covering all 5 continents. It has
been exporting various components oI Micro Irrigation System to countries in Europe,
America, AIrica, South East, Middle East and Far East Asia. It is leader in providing
custom made irrigation systems. Out oI Rs. 700 crore annual sales turnover, the export
contributes Rs. 300 crore, especially MIS contributes Rs.120 crore. Farm-Iresh` is a
registered trade mark in Europe and USA and stands Ior GMP, QMS, QA, SPC, Food
SaIety, Stringent Sanitation and Hygiene and similar modern practices. ISO-9001-2000 and
HACCP accredited by RWTUV, Germany, have been achieved.
200

Localized manuIacturers are its major competitors in the market. Localized companies are
selling low price products. A senior marketing manager oI the company is strongly
criticizing low cost Pepsi drip system because oI its very short liIe, less eIIiciency and low
perIormance. According to his views, it is one time use and throws away disposable system.
Because oI its poor perIormance it creates negative impression in Iarmers` mind, which
ultimately negatively aIIects ISI MIS product business. Making Iinance available to Iarmers
to buy MIS is a major problem the company Iaces. Besides, lack oI awareness and lack oI
quality consciousness are other problems in selling MIS.

Distribution and promotion
The company has a country wide dealer`s network oI 900 dealers. In Gujarat, it has 150
dealers. The company looks Ior a dealer who is having good Iarmers` contacts, and has
inIrastructure to stock the products, has vehicle Ior mobility in Iields, and is ready to pay
Rs. 51,000 towards deposit. It oIIers credit Iacility to its dealers on case to case basis. It
oIIers 8 to 10 dealer`s margin. It does not have uniIorm sale target Ior all dealers, instead
it varies Irom place to place.

The system installed at the Iarmer`s Iield is commissioned and training is imparted to the
Iarmer, and is Iollowed by regular aIter sales services. The company does not merely sell
the micro irrigation system, but provide agronomic and extension support, aIter sales
services and all technical supports Ior getting better crop returns. And Ior this, it has more
than 300 technocrats, engineers, agronomists, horticulturists and regional oIIices, as well as
trained dealers, distributors all over India and abroad.

It prepares irrigation schedules keeping in view power quality, availability as well as lean,
peak and average water requirements. It design and implement comprehensive class-room
as well as on-Iarm training courses Ior Iarm operating and managerial personnel. It arranges
on-Iarm visits Ior exposures to various research experiments and trials being conducted on
the corporate, contract and/or leased Iarms; provides agronomical and commercial support
Ior agricultural operations Irom land preparation through sowing, harvesting, storage and
marketing. It also assists in Iormation oI WUAs, SHGs and CIGs.

201
Pamphlets, posters and Iolders are major print media; and Iarm demonstration, Iarmers
meeting, NGOs, Cooperatives, campaigns, exhibitions and Iares are major advertising
media Ior the company. It incurs 10 oI its total sale amount on these advertising and
promotional activities. The company has singed MOU with the lead bank (Dena bank),
Central District cooperative bank and UTI to Iacilitate bank Iinance. Besides collecting and
processing documents Ior bank Iinance on be halI oI Iarmers, it helps Iarmers in making
available government subsidy too. GGRCL has eliminated the problem oI dealing with
diIIerent government departments in making government subsidy available to Iarmers.
However, collecting numbers oI documents to avail the state government subsidy and the
lengthy process oI Iarmers` MIS application sanction and approval with compare to other
states is a problem. ThereIore, the company`s employees have to devote lots oI their time
behind the paper documentation and processing. For example, 6 employees out oI 10
remain engaged in the documentation and processing. The company is able to mange the
central government norm oI covering 25 small and marginal Iarmers by concentrating on
speciIic pockets.

8. 2.2 Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd.

Company profile:
NetaIim Israel had manuIactured the world`s Iirst dripper in 1965 and since then it is
leading the irrigation industry with the largest market share and the most advanced product
range. With its operations in 112 countries, NetaIim has crossed the sales turnover oI 1500
crore rupees at global level. Today, NetaIim manuIactures more than 3.0 million drippers
per day in its 11 plants located all over the world, viz. Iour in Israel, one each in USA,
Australia, India, South AIrica, Brazil, China and France. It established its business in India
in 1988. Later, NetaIim Irrigation India Private Ltd, the Indian subsidiary oI NetaIim Israel
was established on September 25, 1997. It is a Private limited multinational company. At
present, it has 406 employees, oI which, 313 are technical personnel, 30 administration
personnel, 15 managers and 48 other staII members.

Product profile
NetaIim India is dealing with mainly two types oI MIS products, drip system and impact
sprinkler system. It is manuIacturing only drip system and its major components in India. It
imports Iilters and drippers mainly Irom Israel which account Ior 15 oI its turnover. Its
202
Israel plant manuIactures green house products. The company`s manuIacturing plant is
located at Manjusar, Savli Taluka oI Baroda district. The plant is producing 36.5 MT
emitters, 11,000 MT emitting pipes and 2200 MT poly laterals per annum. The plant is
running at 80 capacity utilization.

It is buying Arkal brand Iilters Irom Arkal industries oI Israel. The company is importing
entire micro sprinkler system Irom Israel. Brand name oI both the products is NetaIim. The
meaning oI NetaIim is a drop oI water and that is why the products name has been kept
NetaIim. Since inception oI the company there is no change in the brand name. Product liIe
oI both the systems is 15 years. A drip system costs Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 180,000 per ha and a
micro sprinkler system costs Rs. 25,000 to 80,000. The cost oI drip and micro sprinkler
systems varies Irom Iarmer to Iarmer depending on his/her Iarm size, crop pattern and
source oI irrigation.

Market price oI drip and micro sprinkler systems is determined based on production cost,
proIit margin, business volume, and government projects such as GGRCL. The company
does not change any parts or components oI drip and micro sprinklers oIten but instead it
introduces new products at an interval oI 3 to 5 years with new design and technology. The
company has Iormal contract with 4 to 5 other Indian companies to buy some speciIic parts
required to manuIacture drip system components. The company provides standard
speciIications and designs to such companies so that it gets desired quality products. Prior
to Iormal contract and aIter having contract, the company`s technical team and management
team periodically visit these companies to ensure about getting desire quality products. The
entire MIS system is assembled at Iarmers` Iield.

Sales, Competition and Markets

The annual turnover oI the company jumped Irom merely Rs. 63 crore in 2005-06 to Rs.
130 crores in 2006-07 mainly because oI Iormation oI GGRCL in Gujarat. The growth in
turnover is more than 100 in a year. Other major reasons Ior increasing growth are
Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) project, assistance oI government
subsidy, electricity problem, and higher yield beneIits. The company has three types oI
buyers, individual buyers (90 ), corporate buyers (8 ) and institutional buyers (2 ).
203
Among them, 85 are new system buyers, 10 are replacement buyers and 5 are repair
and maintenance buyers.


Fig. 8.3: Marketing Structure of the company




















Source: Chopra and Moshawir, 2004.

NetaIim MIS covered 30,000 ha in India in 2006-07 and 15,300 ha in 2005-06. OI which,
8,150 ha was in Gujarat. In overall sale, drip systems contribute 97 - 98 and micro
sprinklers 2 - 3 . Today, more than 64,000 ha oI Indian Iarms are irrigated by NetaIim
drip irrigation systems. Gujarat accounts Ior 50 in the total MIS sale oI the company.
NetaIim drip system has market share oI 43 in Gujarat. The major marketing pockets in
Gujarat are all districts oI south Gujarat, Sabarkantha district and Kachchh district. The
company exports its products to Sri Lanka, Pakistan and China. The export contributes 7 - 8
in the total sale.
Managing Director
General Manger
(South India)
General Manager
(North India)
General Manager
(Central India)
State Manager/ Regional
Manager
Area Sales
Manager
Field
OIIicers
204

Jain irrigation and Plastro Plasson Inds (I) Ltd. are two major competitors oI the NetaIim
India. In Gujarat, the company experiences healthy competition because oI Iixed unit cost
price suggested by GGRCL but in other states, it is Iacing problem because competitors and
other companies get involved in politics and malpractices and that negatively aIIects
NetaIim`s MIS business. The company supplies its products and components to Nagarjuna
Iertilizers and chemicals Limited in India.

The company provides technical services Ior 5 years and agronomical services Ior one year
aIter MIS sale. The cost oI these sevices is included in the unit cost oI the MIS Iixed by
GGRCL. However, the company also bears a part oI the service cost. Technical service
includes repair and maintenance. Component replacement cost has to be borne by the
Iarmers.

Distribution
A prospective dealer has to deposit Rs. 25,000 to become a dealer oI the company. Apart
Irom the money, the company looks Ior technical educational qualiIications, Iarmers`
contact, Iield staII (one person per 40 ha.), and oIIice inIrastructure Ior oIIering dealership.
NetaIim India has widespread dealers` network in the states oI Andhra Pradesh,
Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamilnadu and Uttaranchal. It has 300 dealers across the country. OI
which 45 are in Gujarat. For every two dealers the company has allotted one engineer,
though he is either an agriculture engineer or BSc agriculture. So the company can analyse
the requirements oI the Iarmer and suggest a design Ior the drip to be installed in his/her
Iield (Chopra and Moshawir, 2004). It has 11 regional oIIices across all the important
geographical zones in the country. To ensure timely delivery and service its market
eIIiciently, it has a network oI 9 warehouses all over the country.

The company provides 30 to 60 days credit and oIIer 4 margin to dealers. There is no
Iixed target Ior dealers but the company is working on the target given by GGRCL.
However, generally a dealer has to sell MIS Ior 150 ha per year otherwise, the company
appoints a new dealer in his/her area to achieve the target.

205
Lack oI Iarmers` awareness and skepticism oI Iarmers Ior making investment in MIS due to
uncertain market price oI agricultural produces are major problems in marketing MIS. In
other words, uncertain return on investment is a major hurdle in selling MIS.

Promotion
Besides aIter sale services, the company also provides acidiIication treatment to Iarmers Ior
which Iarmers have to pay the cost oI liquid acid. AcidiIication is required in case oI
system clogging. The company provides Iree oI cost training to dealers and Iarmers. It
organizes on average 4 to 5 trainings per month.

Major areas oI training involves:
Basic principles and advantages oI drip technology
Basic agronomic principles used in drip irrigation
Filtration principles and its use
Products and its applications
Designing oI irrigation systems
Operation and maintenance oI irrigation systems
Water and Iertilizer management, best cultural practices in all major crops

The agronomic support oIIered to NetaIim customers include:
Water management
Fertilizer management
Cultivation practices
Soil and water suitability Ior a particular crop

AIter sales service covers:
Installation and aIter sales servicing oI drip and sprinkler irrigation systems
Chemical treatments like acid and chlorination oI micro irrigation systems
Training oI Iarmers, company dealers and service staII in operation and
maintenance oI drip and sprinkler irrigation systems

The company uses Iollowing media Ior advertising and promoting its products.

T.V.
News papers
Pamphlets/Posters/leaIlets/Iolders
Hoardings
Farm demonstrations
Farmers meetings
Individual contact
NGOs
Campaigns
Exhibition (mainly Agri-Iair)

The company spends 2 oI its total sale amount on advertising and promotional activities.
206

The company`s Research and development cell is continuously working on Iarmers`
problem and introduces new product by making changes in product design and components
at a long term interval may be at 3 to 5 years to meet Iarmers demand.
The demand Ior MIS is increasing and would continuously increase because many state
governments are now planning to establish GGRCL type agency in their respective state.
Besides, government support, increasing water scarcity, electricity supply shortage Ior
agriculture, labour shortage and improvement in yield and quality oI agricultural produces
are major Iactors responsible Ior Iuture growth.

GGRCL provides help to the company in promotion oI MIS and minimizes procedural
problems. The company also has signed MOU with State Bank oI India and Union Bank to
promote MIS. OI the total GGRCL customers, the company has 65 loanee and 35 non
loanee customers. It extends helps to Iarmers in preparing documents required to avail
subsidy Irom GGRCL and loan Irom banks. The company has to devote 60 time in
document preparations and 40 time on product promotion and sale.

Payment terms Ior the companies and charging high management Iees Irom Iarmers are
major problems with GGRCL. There is corruption Iree corporate culture at GGRCL which
is mainly responsible Ior rise in growth oI MIS in Gujarat. GGRCL maintains good
relations with all MIS companies but at the same time it is independent in making its
policies and taking decisions without entertaining any company`s interIerence.

8.2.3. Parixit Industries Ltd.

Company profile
The company is based at Ahmedabad. Mr. Amrut I. Patel is an owner and a ChieI MD oI
the company. Mr. Parixit Patel is a joint MD and Chairperson oI the company. The
company was established in 1989. It is a Iamily owned limited company. The total staII
strength oI the company is 422. The breakup oI the staII employees is given in the table.




207
Table 8.3:Break up of the company staff
Staff category Numbers
Technical 62
Non technical 104
Managerial 22
Casual 140
Others 94
Total 422
Source: Parixit industries Ltd, Ahmedabad.

Its MIS product manuIacturing plant is located at Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. However,
the company is going to shiIt its Vatva plant to Sanand soon.

Product profile
The company manuIactures Iilters, laterals, inlines, drippers, HDPE sprinkler pipes,
sprinkler nozzles. Besides, these components oI drip and sprinkler systems, the company is
also manuIacturing HDPE pipes, HDPE column pipes, HDPE pipe Iittings, PP/HDPE and
ball valves. It has acquired 9 BIS licenses Ior manuIacturing MIS products. The company
has started manuIacturing diIIerent products in diIIerent years as shown in the table below:

Table 8.4: product wise manufacturing year of different products of company
Product Starting year of manufacturing
Sprinkler nozzles 2006
PVC 2004
Filters 2004
Inlines 2000
HDPE sprinklers 1996
Drippers 1995
Laterals 1994
HDPE 1992
Source: Parixit industries Ltd, Ahmedabad.

Average market price oI company`s diIIerent MIS systems is given in the table below:

Table 8.5: Average market price and range of MISs of Prixit
MIS system Average market price (Rs.) Price range (Rs.)
Drip 85,000 32,000 to Rs. 140,000
Sprinkler 13,000 12,000 to 22,000
Impact sprinkler 83,000 75,000 to 100,000
Source: Parixit industries Ltd, Ahmedabad.

The average product liIe oI all MIS systems is 10 years. All products have a unique brand
oI Parixit. No speciIic reason behind the brand name except its association with the
208
company`s name. The company manuIactures 95 MIS product components at its
manuIacturing unit and bought 5 product parts such as metal valves, bolts and nuts Irom
the market. Since inception, the company has not changed its product brand name. The
company Iollows GGRCL price structure Ior its MIS product market price.

The company has made Iollowing changes in its product proIile over a period oI time:
Pipe size and shape, Iitting size and shape, shiIting Irom steel/metal to plastic and HDPE
material since 2005, quality oI material (thickness and durability), etc. The company does
not manuIacture any other agricultural implements/equipments. The company keeps stock
oI its products at manuIacturing plants and assembles them on Iarmers` Iarms. It does not
have any type oI collaboration with any other manuIacturing plants/ companies; neither has
it any Iormal tie up with any other suppliers. It buys metal products Irom about 40 to 50
inIormal suppliers Irom the open market. The company imports 10 MIS products,
especially drippers Irom Israel. The annual production capacity oI its manuIacturing plant is
7600 MT. The plant utilization capacity is 40.

Sales, competition and markets
The annual turnover oI the company is Rs. 46 crores. MIS is contributing 60 to its annual
turnover. Out oI overall MIS turnover (60), the company generates 50 turnover Irom
Gujarat. The turnover is increasing because oI GGRCL intervention, built up awareness oI
Iarmers, and availability oI government Iund to support MIS. BeIore GGRCL intervention,
the company`s MIS sale was based on cash and carry and it was components sale but aIter
GGRCL, now it is system selling and thus, the business is increasing. Since 1992, it has
started its MIS business operation in Gujarat. In Gujarat, the company`s MIS sale jumped
Irom Rs. 8 crore covering 1103 hectare in 2005-06 to Rs. 13 crore covering 1485 hectare in
2006-07. Out oI total Iarmers covered in Gujarat during the last year, there are
approximately 35 loanee Iarmers and 65 non loanee Iarmers. Kachchh, Surendranagar,
Bhavnagar and Amreli are major pockets oI Drip system marketing in Gujarat. These
pockets together contribute 50 oI the total drip system sale. Junagadh, Banaskntha, and
Amreli are major pockets oI marketing sprinkler system. Impact (micro) sprinkler is a
recent product and it occupies less than 1 in total sale. The company sells 98 oI its
MIS products in India and only 2 MIS products is being exported to Libiya and a
European country.

209
Jain and NetaIim are major market competitors Ior the company. Actually because oI
increased awareness and market promotion activities Iollowed by these competitors there is
a healthy market competitions and that helps company to grow business. In a way the
competition helps increasing business. The company is thriving on quality products and it is
very conIident about its quality products. It does not supply any parts/products to MNCs in
India.

The company has 90 individual buyers, 6-7 institutional buyers, and 2-3 corporate
buyers. Among these buyers, 90 are new system buyers, 8 are system replacement
buyers and 2 are repair and maintenance purpose buyers.

Distribution and promotion

The company has 80 dealers in Gujarat and 520 dealers in other states. The company has
Iramed terms and conditions Ior oIIering dealership as Iollows.
Rs, 50, 000 as deposit on which company pays 8 interest.
Technical staII one surveyor and one person Ior MIS installation
InIrastructure oIIice space and storage space
The company provides aIter sale service to its buyers. The service includes system
maintenance and agronomical guidance. The tenure oI system maintenance service is Ior 5
years and agronomical service is Ior one year. Company bears the cost oI aIter sale
services. However, Iarmers pay a part oI aIter sale service charges in GGRCL scheme
which is already included in the unit cost oI MIS. It organizes various types oI training
programmes Ior dealers and its own employees. It organizes dealer training once in a year,
and manpower training and company employee training on quarterly basis. Besides, the
company provides MIS assembling trainings to its dealers and Iarmers at its own cost.

The company oIIers average 7-8 dealer margin. However, it does not provide any type oI
credit Iacility to its dealers. There are no any speciIic sale conditions Ior dealers but the
company asks dealers to bring minimum 50 hectare land under Company`s MIS in a year.
Company does not have the concept oI area based dealership appointment but it appoints
dealers looking to the market growth.

210
Lack oI advance crop planning is a major problem Irom Iarmers because it creates supply
problem Ior the company. About 5-10 Iarmers take their own time in trial run and that
delays the company`s payment. Because as per the GGRCL rule, the company can not get
Iull payment unless Iarmers give their consent Ior releasing the payment by signing
required documents aIter carrying out trial run successIully on Iarmers` Iarm.

The company takes help oI Iollowing advertising and promotional materials to increase
MIS sale.

a. newspapers
b. pamphlets
c. Iarm demonstration
d. Iarmers meeting
e. individual contact
I. NGOs
g. posters
h. Iolders/Ilash cards
i. wall painting
j. exhibition such as agriculture Iair

It spends about 1-1.5 amount oI its total sale on advertisement and sale promotion
activities. It places new MIS products as and when required based on suggestions and
requirements oI Iarmers. For example, it has recently introduced Iertilizer injectors.

GGRCL provides Iollowing help to the company:
Prepare modality Ior MIS installation
Allocate target to individual company
Organize monthly review meeting
District wise monthly meeting to be initiated shortly
Facilitate bank Iinance process on case to case basis.

The company helps Iarmer in preparing all required documentation to be eligible Ior
availing GGRCL beneIits. Though it has relationship with banks with regards to IulIill its
Iinancial requirement Ior the growth oI the company, except GGRCL it does not have any
linkages with banks or any other organizations to promote MIS in particular. Only one
major problem it Iaces with GGRCL is collecting more number oI documents and their
processing.

211
Demand Ior MIs will increase in the next 5-10 years because oI government support.
Gujarat state government is planning to bring entire Sardar Sarovar Project canal command
area under MIS. Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) policy oI promoting MIS under which, as
per the changed GEB norm, any applicant who is ready to get MIS install on his/her Iarm
on which s/he would like to get electricity connection Ior groundwater extraction will be
given the Iirst priority in the list oI pending application and the GEB will release the
electricity connection accordingly, will also help spread oI micro irrigation. Farmers are
experiencing higher production because oI MIS. State governments oI Rajasthan,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh Chattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka are
planning to implement GGRCL model in their respective states to promote MIS. 11
th
plan
has targeted to cover 7 lakh hectares oI land under MIS.

To conclude, in Gujarat, a public-private partnership is in place to promote MIS as the state
is in dire need oI water saving technologies. The companies Iocus on products and
extension and the GGRC on Iarmer awareness and Iacilitation in providing Iinance and
quality materials.


















212
Chapter 9
Distribution of Micro-irrigation Equipment: Dealer level analysis
Dealers oI micro irrigation equipment have an important role to play in promoting the
technology among Iarmers. ThereIore, a survey oI MI equipment dealers was carried out to
understand the industry practices at the dealer level and to appreciate the issues in
marketing oI such technologies among Iarmers. This chapter Iocuses on dealer level aspects
oI marketing oI micro irrigation equipment in Gujarat. The sample dealers include those iI
major players i.e. Jain, NetaIim, Parixit and Plasto and across major pockets oI micro
irrigation spread in Gujarat i.e. north Gujarat and Kachch regions (table 9.1).

Table 9.1: Company wise dealership sample for the study
Company Ahmedabad Himmatnagar Bayad Palanpur Vadgam Bhuj Total
Jain - 1 1 1 - 1 4
NetaIim - 1 - 1 - 1 3
Parixit - - - 1 1 1 3
Plastro 1 1 - 1 - 1 4
Total 1 3 1 4 1 4 14

Dealers` profile
DiIIerent company dealers operated at diIIerent levels like district or taluka or even more
than one district (table 9.2) and were either proprietary or partnership Iirms with maximum
partners being Iour in some cases (table 9.3). A large majority oI the dealers were either
graduate or agri graduates in terms oI their educational background (table 9.4). Except one,
all were Hindu Patels which is a dominant caste in Gujarat.

Table 9.2: Dealers` area of jurisdiction
Company Area oI work
Jain cluster oI talukas
NetaIim entire district
Parixit adjoining talukas
Plastro district and/or cluster oI districts

Table 9.3 : Nature of dealership and Number of entities involved*
Company Single ownership / proprietorship Partnership No oI partners Total
Jain 2 2 4 each 10
NetaIim 3 3
Parixit 3 3
Plastro 2 2 2, 3 7
Total 10 4 9 23
Note: * though the number oI absolute dealership out lets surveyed is 14 the total number
oI dealers are 23 because 4 outlets have more than one dealer partners.
213

Table 9.4: Distribution of dealers by education`
Company Under graduation Graduation Agricultural graduation
Jain 3 5 2
NetaIim 0 1 2
Parixit 1 1 1
Plastro 2 1 4
Total 6 8 9
Note: * though the number oI absolute dealership out lets surveyed is 14 the total number
oI dealers are 23 because 4 outlets have more than one dealer partners.

A majority oI dealers had signiIicant experiences in this business which ranged Irom 5-10
and 10-15 years in case oI one third each oI the total dealers. Only about 15 each had less
than 5 years and more than 15 years experience each (table 9.5). More than halI oI the
dealers were not involved in any other business and others were involved in diverse
businesses like agri inputs, hardware, and landscaping (table 9.6 and 9.7).

Table 9.5: Distribution of dealers by previous experience
Years
Company
5.00 5.00-10.00 10.01-15.00 15.01 to 20.00 Total
Jain 1 1 1 1 4
NetaIim 1 2 - - 3
Parixit - - 2 1 3
Plastro - 2 2 4
Total 2 5 5 2 14

Table 9.6: Distribution of dealers by other businesses carried out
Company Yes No Total
Jain 2 2 4
NetaIim 0 3 3
Parixit 2 1 3
Plastro 2 2 4
Total 6 8 14

Table 9.7: Distribution of dealers by type of other businesses carried out
Company Agri-
inputs
Hardware Agriculture linked other business

Total
Jain 2 - - 2
NetaIim - - - 0
Parixit 1 1 - 2
Plastro 1 - 1 (Agri-inputs, Landscape irrigation, Green
house, Agro consultancy, Selling PVC
pipes)
2
Total 4 1 1 6


214
SpeciIically, Ior present dealership, the experience ranged Irom just tow years to as many
as 10 years with an equal proportion being very young in this dealership and very
experienced each (35-40) (table 9.8). The other company dealerships were carried out by
just three dealers that too in other agri inputs like seeds, Iertilizers and the like (table 9.9).

Table 9.8: Distribution of dealers by MIS dealership experience
Years
Company
2.00 2.00-5.00 5.01-10.00 Total
Jain 3 - 1 4
NetaIim 1 1 1 3
Parixit 1 - 2 3
Plastro 1 2 1 4
Total 6 3 5 14

Table 9.9: Distribution of dealers by dealership of other products
Company Agri-
inputs
Name oI companies
Jain 1 Gujarat Agro, Gujarat Seed Corporation and United
Phosphorous Ltd.
Parixit 1 Mangalam seeds corporation and Krushi Rasayan Pvt ltd.
Plastro 1 Coromandal Iertilizers

Total 3

Volume of business

As table 10.10 shows, most oI the turnover was Irom MIS equipment sale and average sale
per dealer worked out to be Rs. 2.66 crore ranging Irom minimum oI 90 lakh to a high oI
more than Iive crore. Most oI the turnover was Irom MIS equipment sale except in case oI
Jain dealers and main outlets accounted Ior as much as 87 oI total turnover. One oI the
Ahmedabad based Plastro dealers possessed dealership oI two other MIS companies
(Nagarjuna plastic and Paragon Synthetics and polymer Ltd.) which together account Ior
10 sale oI his MIS business. This was the only dealer outlet possessing multi brand MIS
dealership. All others were single brand ownership outlets.








215
Table 9.10: Distribution of dealers by annual sales turnover (Rs. in crore)
Company Total
sale

MIS
sale in
total
sale

Average
business
sale/dealer
Average
MIS
sale/
dealer
Share oI
MIS sale
in
business
sale
()
Share oI
main
outlets in
business
sale ()
Jain 6.30 3.85 1.58 0.96 61.11 96.43
NetaIim 15.92 15.92 5.31 5.31 100.00 100.00
Parixit 2.71 2.59 0.90 0.86 95.39 47.97
Plastro 12.24 11.84 3.06 2.96 96.73 75.69
Total 37.17 34.20 2.66 2.44 92.00 87.60


Interestingly, many dealers across companies had appointed sub dealers or agents ranging
Irom three to as many as 13 with the average number oI such subdealers being seven (table
9.11). NetaIim dealers have appointed sub-dealers with oIIice establishment support on
50:50 cost sharing basis to increase their business. They oIIer 1 commission on sale
turnover to their sub-dealers. Besides, they incur the cost oI telephone communication and
Iield travel. A Plastro dealer and a Parixit dealer have appointed commission agents without
providing any Iinancial support. But they oIIer 50 commission Irom their dealer`s margin
to their commission agents. A Jain dealer had appointed commission agents by oIIering
1.5 commission. ISI companies` market share is higher than non ISI companies` market
share in the study area. For example, the Palanpur MIS market is dominated by ISI
companies which account Ior 80 market share.

Table 9.11: Distribution of Dealers by sales network
Company Number oI dealers selling
MIS through commission
agents or sub dealers

Number oI
commission agents
and sub dealers
Average number oI
commission agents and
sub-dealers / dealer
Jain 1 4 4
NetaIim 2 13 6.5
Parixit 2 3 1.5
Plastro 2 26 13
Total 7 46 6.57

The level oI competition measured in terms oI number oI dealers in the area ranged Irom
minimum oI two in Bayed to as high as 11 in Bhuj district (table 9.12). Each dealer on an
average covered 350 hacs in an year ranging Irom minimum oI 145 hacs to as much as 570
hacs (table 9.13). Further, / oI the sales were to loanee Iarmers and only / to non-loanee
Iarmers (table 9.14).
216

Table 9.12: Distribution of dealers by competitors in the area
Area No. of MIS
dealers
Ahmedabad 9
Himmatnagar 6
Bayad 2
Palanpur 8
Bhuj 11
Total 36

Table 9.13: Distribution of dealers by MIS coverage (in hacs) in their area in 2006-07

Company Total land Average land/dealer

Jain 1230 307.50
NetaIim 1707 569.00
Parixit 435 145.00
Plastro 1515 378.75
Total 4887 349.07

Table 9.14: Distribution of dealers by loanee and non-loanee farmers (N13)
Company of loanee farmers of non loanee farmers

Jain 57.50 42.50
NetaIim 92.33 7.67
Parixit 77.50 22.50
Plastro 77.50 22.50
Total 74.77 25.23

Most oI the pre and post sales services were provided by dealers which ranged Irom
awareness raising to installation oI equipment and even market linkage Ior Iarm produce.
Companies provide MIS designing, cost estimate preparing and agronomical services to
Iarmers. Dealers build awareness and identiIy potential customers. They carry out Iield
survey and installation work. They also provide technical and maintenance services besides
taking the responsibility oI processing documents Ior bank Iinance as well as subsidy. MIS
has introduced cultivation oI commercial crops to maximize economic beneIits and return
on investment. However, Iarmers are not used to do marketing oI commercial crops and
hence they require market support. Some oI the dealers provide such market support and
that develops a relationship and builds mutual trust between dealers and their clients.



217
Table 9.15: Main services provided to farmers
Nature of services Who
provide
the
service
Number of
dealers
of
dealers
Building Iarmers awareness Dealer 14 100.00
Customer identiIications Dealer 14 100.00
Designing and Cost estimate Company 14 100.00
Field survey Ior MIS design Dealer 14 100.00
Document processing Ior bank Iinance and
subsidy
Dealer 14 100.00
MIS installation (Fittings) Dealer 14 100.00
Market linkages Dealer 4 28.57
Provide agri-input inIormation Dealer 4 28.57
Introduce new crops Dealer 2 14.29
Provide crop production knowledge Dealer 2 14.29
After sale services
Agronomical service Company 14 100.00
Maintenance service Dealer 11 78.57
Operating system knowledge Dealer 7 50.00
Technical guidance Dealer 3 21.43
Chemical treatment (acidiIication treatment) Dealer 4 28.57
Monthly or Fortnightly visit Dealer 2 14.29

A NetaIim dealer oI Palanpur has established linkages between Balaji WaIers and potato
growers and also between Papaya growers and a private trader. Another NetaIim dealer in
Himatnagar has established marketing linkages between McCain Foods and 150 potato
growers. Some oI the dealers provide agri-input inIormation, introduce new crops and
provide crop production knowledge. Except agronomical services, dealers provide all other
aIter sale services which include operation, maintenance and other technical guidance and
chemical treatments. A Iew dealers regularly visit Iarmers` Iields to inspect the system
(Table 9.15). GGRCL registered companies are made responsible to provide technical and
agronomical services to its client Iarmers; however, it is Iound that the companies hardly
provide any satisIactory agronomical services to their client Iarmers, but their dealers
provide technical and maintenance services to Iarmers. A NetaIim dealer oI Himmatnagar
strongly believed that the MIS industry is service oriented. Dealers have to provide regular,
continuous and quality services to their client Iarmers. Quality oI service is a major
determinant oI MIS marketing and sale growth. Major requirements oI Iarmers in MIS
included multiple crop relevant systems, subsidy inIormation and access to it, speedy
processing oI applications and lower cost systems (table 9.16),

218
Table 9.16: Dealer opinion about customers` main requirement in MIS
Farmers requirements No of dealers of dealers
MIS Ior Multiple crop 9 64.29
Maximize subsidy beneIits 5 35.71
Demand low cost system 3 21.43
Speedy processing 3 21.43
AIter sale service 2 14.29
Quality products 2 14.29
Agronomical service 1 7.14
Demand in-line drip system 1 7.14
Demand impact sprinkler 1 7.14
Interested in pipeline Ior water conveyance 1 7.14
Demand micro-tube MIS 1 7.14

The dealers had to pay an average oI Rs. 37,642 as deposit and make an investment oI Rs.
8, 16,538. Besides, working capital requirements were oI the order oI Rs. 55000 per month.
Across dealers oI diIIerent companies, deposit varied Irom a low oI Rs. 25, 000 to as much
as rs. 50, 5000 Ior Jain. Similarly, Iixed investment also varied Irom rs. 66,000 to as much
as Rs. 20 lakh and working capital Irom Rs. 19000 to Rs.1, 14 444 per month (table 9.17).
A majority oI the dealers had mobilised this resource Irom their own sources and only some
had partly obtained bank loan Ior these requirements (table 9.18).

Table 9.17: Distribution of dealers by investment in dealership (in Rs.)
Company Avg. deposit to
company
Avg. fixed
investment
Avg. working
capital/month
Jain 50,500 510,000 19,625
NetaIim 25,000 2,025,000 114,444
Parixit 33,333 66,667 15,833
Plastro 37,500 766,667 75,417
All
companies
37,642 816,538 55,071

Table 9.18: Distribution of dealers by sources of investment in dealership
Source of investment Number of dealers of dealers
Own 5 35.71
Own, Bank 4 28.57
Own, Relatives/Friends/Parents 3 21.43
Own, Bank, Relatives, Friends 2 14.29
Total 14 100.00

Except Jain, no other company provides credit to dealers. Jain also provides it on case to
case basis. It has oIIered 60 days credit to two dealers. One Parixit dealer oI Bhuj received
credit because oI his personal relationship with the company as he was an employee oI the
company Ior a long period oI time beIore initiating this business. Besides, he did not pay
219
any deposit amount to the company Ior the same reason. But this is exceptional case and no
other company including Parixit provides credit to dealers.

The other conditions to obtain dealership included technical staII, business or marketing
experience, Iarmer contact, oIIice space and technical knowledge besides vehicles to visit
rural areas (table 9.19). Dealers should be Iinancially capable enough to invest to begin
with. About 4-5 technicians (Ior survey, installation and marketing) were required to claim
Jain dealership. HalI oI the dealers perceived their companies terms and conditions as
better than the other companies` terms and conditions due to quick support in case oI need,
release oI payment in time, regular contact with dealers and perIormance based
compensation (table 9.20 and 9.21).

Table 9.19: Distribution of dealers by requirement to attain dealership
Requirements No. of
dealers
of
dealers
StaII 8 57.14
Business or marketing experience 8 57.14
Dealer network (Iarmers contact) 7 50.00
OIIice space 7 50.00
Educational qualiIications and/or technical
knowledge
6 42.86
Technicians 6 42.86
Vehicles 4 28.57
Computer 3 21.43

Table 9.20: Distribution of Dealers by perception of dealership terms & conditions
being better than other companies
Dealers` responses about company`s terms and
conditions
No of
dealers
of
dealers
Not better 4 28.57
Better 7 50.00
At par with other companies 3 21.43

Table 9.21: Distribution of dealers by reasons for better terms and conditions N7
with multiple responses
Reasons for considering better T&C No of dealers of dealers
Quick support 3 42.86
Release payment in time 3 42.86
Regular contacts with dealers 2 28.57
OIIer perIormance based commission 2 28.57
Strict in Iollowing rules and regulations 1 14.29
No Ialse commitment to Iarmers 1 14.29
Got dealership without money deposit 1 14.29
220

Dealers` terms and conditions were better in Jain irrigation as it oIIers work load based
margin to dealers. It provided its employees to dealers to support MIS marketing and hence
sharing oI work between company employees and dealers staII decides the dealer`s margin.
But, Jain irrigation dealership terms and conditions were changing Irom time to time
because oI market competition and there was no restriction on dealers` jurisdiction and
hence any dealer could do business Irom anywhere and that negatively aIIects dealers`
business. Jain irrigation experienced a dealers` scandal oI Rs. one crore in the past and were
still Iacing legal action to get rid oI that scandal. Hence, it was very careIul and cautious in
promoting MIS on a large scale in Gujarat. The company would like to Iollow Bajaj auto
model oI open boundary dealership. However, dealers were skeptical about the dealership
policy oI the company and hence were not keen in either developing or expanding the
business. Its dealers Ielt that there should be synchronized eIIorts Irom both company and
dealers to make the business grow.

Support to dealers

All companies provide technicians to dealers. However, diIIerent companies provide
diIIerent type oI technicians to dealers. Jain provides agronomist and design engineer,
NetaIim provides agronomist, design engineer and Iield assistant, Parixit provides
agronomist and Plastro provides engineer Ior MIS installation work especially when the
large area has to be put under MIS. No company provides salary to dealer`s technicians.

Jain and NetaIim provide training to dealers` Iield staII/technicians and also organize
dealers` training. Parixit and Plastro do not provide any training to dealers` Iield
staII/technicians neither they organize dealers` training. However, Plastro provides on-Iarm
installation training to its dealers technicians. NetaIim also organizes Iarmers` training.
Plastro is willing to provide training to dealers` Iield staII/technicians provided dealers are
ready to bear the cost oI training.

MIS installation, system operation and maintenance, agronomical services, and chemical
treatment (acidiIication and Iertigation) are major areas oI Jain training. In addition to all
Jain training topics, NetaIim training includes aIter-sale service, survey and designing and
dealing with Iarmers/ customers (marketing). The perceived liIe oI MIS equipment varied
221
Irom 7 to 14 years across company dealers and average was 10.7 years in case oI drip and
12.4 years in case oI sprinkler with range oI 8-17 years (table 9.22)

Table 9.22: Dealer perception of life of MIS of various companies (in years)
Company Drip Sprinkler
Jain 14.4 17.5
NetaIim 10.3 12
Parixit 7 10
Plastro 10 8.3
All companies 10.7 12.4

Dealers carry out diIIerent types oI advertisement and sale promotion activities (table 9.23).
Farmers meeting and/or Iarmers contact is one oI the major activities Ior 93 dealers. It is
Iollowed by exposure visits/Iield tours and distribution oI printed literature in case oI 71
and 57 dealers, respectively. About 21 dealers carry out wall painting activities. Parixit
dealers in particular organize village level video show. Jain dealer oI Bhuj organizes one
day aIter sale workshop by inviting only client Iarmers. NetaIim dealers also occasionally
organize Iarmers` seminar. The result clearly shows that personal contact is a leading sale
promotion activity.

Table 9.23: Distribution of dealers by advertising and sale promotion expenses and
liability
Activities No oI dealers oI dealers Who bears the cost
Farmers contact and/or Iarmers
meeting
13 92.86 Dealers
Exposure visit/ Iield tour 10 71.43 50:50
Distribution oI printed materials
such as handouts and pamphlets
in local news papers.
8 57.14 50:50
Wall painting 3 21.43 Company
Video Show 2 14.29 50:50


Table 9.24: Distribution of dealers by type of advertising/sales promotion activity
Activities Who bears the cost No oI
dealers
oI
dealers
Brand awareness building Companies 7 50.00
Sale promotion Share on 50:50 basis between
companies and dealers
10 71.43

Generally, it is Iound that companies incur the cost oI brand awareness building activities,
while companies and dealers share the cost oI sale promotion activities on 50:50 basis. For
example, companies bear the Iull cost oI wall painting activity and companies and dealers
222
share the expenditure incur on other promotional activities such as one day Iarmers`
seminar, exposure visit, distributing printed literature in local news papers and participating
in agri-Iair, etc. However, two Plastro dealers incurred the entire cost oI literature printing
and distribution. In case oI video show, companies provide the CDs/video cassettes and
dealers bear the cost oI organizing village level video show. Dealers incur the Iull cost oI
Iarmers contact/meeting. Sometimes, company and dealers share the cost oI events such as
Iarmers` Iield day or Iarmer`s seminar on 50:50 basis. Companies such as Jain initially
bears all the cost oI advertisement and sale promotion activities until dealers get establish
their identity in local areas. Jain bears the entire cost oI long distance outside the district
Iarmers` tour (table 9.24). All dealers said that advertisement and sale promotion activities
positively inIluence Iarmers` behavior. It builds brand awareness and system awareness and
increases quality consciousness among Iarmers which ultimately increases acceptance
/adoption oI MIS (table 9.25). Resultantly, it increases MIS sale.

Table 9.25: Distribution of dealers by their perception of influence of advertisement
and sale promotion on farmer behaviour and sale
Particulars No of
dealers
of
dealers
InIluence Iarmers` behaviour 14 100.00
Built up brand awareness and system awareness 12 85.71
Increased acceptance/adoption because oI higher
Motivation
6 42.86
InIluence sale 14 100.00
Little impact on sale 2 14.29
Increased sale by 10 to 60 with average 24 7 50.00


Formal tie-up with banks or other financial institutions
Except NetaIim no other companies have established Iormal tie-up with banks or any other
Iinancial institutions in the study areas. NetaIim has established Iormal tie-up with SBI in
S.K. and B.K. districts. Nevertheless, dealers neither establish any Iormal tie-up with banks
nor with any Iinancial institutions.

Costs involved in making financial arrangement for the customers
Dealers do not incur any direct cost but incur indirect cost in terms oI allocating resources
such as manpower and business time behind making Iinance available to their customers.
About 93 dealers allocate their business time and 42 dealers allocate exclusive
manpower behind the activity. A dealer considered that vehicle operating cost and time
223
goes in bank Iollow up is a major cost oI the activity. About 78.5 dealers spent on an
average 26 oI their business time behind the activity. DiIIerent dealers spent diIIerent
amount oI time as shown in the table-. A NetaIim dealer oI Palanpur has employed a Iull
time person throughout the year Ior this work and that costs him Rs 12,000 per month.
Similarly, another NetaIim dealer oI Himantnagar has employed a person at each oI his
sub-dealer out let to Iollow up bank procedure and he bears the salary cost oI these
employees (table 9.26).

Table 9.26: cost of dealing with farmers in arranging a sale of MIS
Business time spent on making financial arrangement
for the customers
No of
dealers
of
dealers
Vehicle operating cost and bank Iollow up 1 7.14
5 2 14.29
10-15 1 7.14
20-30 5 35.71
33-60 3 21.43
Avg. 26 11 78.57

Dealers focused scheme from company

About 36 dealers said that companies oIIered them either target based incentives or sale
turnover incremental incentives. It is Iound that NetaIim regularly oIIers sale turnover
incremental incentive schemes. Jain and Parixit oIten oIIers target based incentive schemes.
DiIIerent companies oIIer diIIerent types oI incentive schemes to their dealers. NetaIim
oIIers diIIerent types oI sale linked incentive scheme Ior dealers starting Irom Rs. 50 lakh
to 12 crore. II a dealer sells MIS worth greater than Rs. 6 crore in a year then s/he gets 1
additional commission on her/his sale turnover and iI s/he crosses sale turnover oI Rs 12
crore in 3 years then s/he gets a Iour wheeler as an incentive besides additional commission.
No other beneIit company provides to dealers. Parixit also oIIers sale linked incentive
scheme in line oI NetaIim but its sale volume target is diIIerent.

Table 9.27: Dealer margins of different MIS companies
Company Average dealer margin ()
Jain 7.50
NetaIim 7.12
Parixit 6.89
Plastro 5.88
Over all 6.82

224
Companies on an average oIIer 6.82 dealer margin. DiIIerent companies oIIer diIIerent
amount and type oI dealer margin (table 9.27). Jain oIIers the highest dealer margin and
Plastro oIIers the lowest dealer margin. Jain and Parixit oIIer diIIerent dealer margin on
diIIerent MIS components. Jain oIIers 6 margin on PVC materials, which account Ior 30
oI the MIS components, and 10 margin on other MIS system components and
materials. Parixit oIIers 5 margin on PVC material, 15 margin on inline drip system and
7.5 margin on all other MIS components and materials including micro tubes. The share
oI PVC material in Parixit`s MIS is 50 in on line drip and 4 in inline drip.

Major business problem
About 86 dealers Iaced diIIerent types oI business problems (table 9.28). Short supply oI
material is a major problem Ior about 43 dealers. About 21 dealers Iaced problems such
as lack oI support Irom company in providing aIter sale service, Iollowing up bank Iinance
procedure, and delay in releasing dealer`s commission. A NetaIim dealer oI Himatnagar Ielt
that because oI the costly system it is very diIIicult to penetrate below the large and
medium size categories oI Iarmers. He has apprehension that market saturation point Ior
MIS will reach within 1 to 2 years owing to low purchasing capacity oI majority Iarmers in
his area.

Table 9.28: Distribution of dealers by major problems faced
Problems No oI
dealers
oI
dealers
Non availability oI MIS in time (short supply oI material) 6 42.86
Lack oI support Irom company in providing aIter sale
service
3 21.43
Bank Iinance procedure Iollow up 3 21.43
Delay in releasing dealer's commission 3 21.43
Company gives lower margin 2 14.29
Costly system 2 14.29
Company is weak in marketing 2 14.29
Minor problems related to the MIS quality 1 7.14
Dealing with uneducated Iarmers 1 7.14
Procedural delay Irom company in putting Iarmers Iile
beIore GGRC
1 7.14

Some oI the dealers Iace company speciIic and location speciIic problems. Plastro dealer oI
Bhuj has to bear the cost oI soil and water testing. Besides, he has to make necessary
lodging and boarding arrangements at his cost Ior the company`s technicians and
employees who have been temporarily deployed at his Iield site Ior MIS installation in a
225
larger area. Two Bhuj dealers suggested that agronomical charges are unnecessary and very
high. Similarly, insurance premium charges are also unnecessary and hence these two
charges should be leIt to the choice oI Iarmers, especially Ior non loanee Iarmers. Non
loanee Iarmers should be given Ireedom to select alternate MIS cost excluding these two
charges. Because, sometimes, it is very diIIicult Ior them to convince Iarmers about these
charges and they observed that companies do not provide agronomical services when it is
required the most.

Dealers` collaboration with GGRCL

The dealers have only subsidy related relationship with GGRCL. They did not have any
direct collaboration with GGRCL, but 28.5 dealers said that their respective company
has made collaboration with GGRCL in promoting MIS. Jain collaborated with GSFC
depot Ior awareness building and promotion oI liquid Iertilizer. NetaIim sponsored caps
with company logo on a mass awareness Iunction organized by GGRCL.

BeIore January 2007, GGRCL was doing Iollow up with banks Ior bank Iinance but since
then GGRC has given this responsibility to Iarmers who do not able to do proper Iollow up
with banks and that hampers the bank Iinance procedure and ultimately it is aIIecting the
MIS selling business. A dealer oI Parixit Industries in Palanpur opined that the delay in
documentation and processing under GGRCL, easy access to and low cost oI non-ISI MIS
attract Iarmers to purchase non-ISI MIS materials Irom the market and that adversely
aIIects the business oI ISI MIS industries. ThereIore, dealers have to take active part in
document preparation and their processing besides dealing with banks Ior Iollow up.
Subsequently, halI oI the dealers Iaced diIIerent types oI problems Irom GGRCL (table
9.29). Another very important problem is that decisions and policies discussed during
quarterly meetings held between GGRC oIIicials and higher level bank oIIicials oIten do
not percolate down to the lower level bank oIIicials and that delays the bank Iinance
process. GGRCL does not listen to dealers and always Iavours Iarmers. It asks dealers to
approach GGRCL through their respective companies to deal with any type oI matter
and/or complain.



226
Table 9.29: Distribution of dealers by problems faced with GGRC
Problems No oI dealers oI dealers
Procedural delay 2 28.57
Documentation and processing 1 14.29
GGRCL does not listen to dealers 2 28.57
Procedural delay and documentation and processing 1 14.29
Procedural delay and lower Iitting charges 1 14.29
Total 7 100.00


Dealers` view on future of MIS
Dealers diIIered in their views on the Iuture growth oI MIS. A NetaIim dealer oI
Himatnagar was oI the view that given the adoption pattern oI Iarmers, there was very
limited scope Ior the Iuture growth oI MIS business in his area. As per the standard
extension adoption process, progressive Iarmers were pioneers in adoption oI innovations
Iollowed by early adopters who were active and ready to experiment and then Iollowed by
late adopters who adopt the innovations aIter seeing the success oI early adopters. At
present, MIS has reached only these three groups oI Iarmers i.e. majority oI the resource
rich Iarmers have adopted MIS and the Iorth and the last group oI Iarmers who are known
as laggards will never adopt the innovations unless it was made economically accessible to
them. ThereIore, the MIS business has bleak Iuture unless some Iinancial assistance is
made available to large numbers oI the Iourth group oI Iarmers in the process oI adoption.
A Plastro dealer oI the same district had totally opposite and optimistic view. He Ielt that
aIter inception oI GGRCL, the growth in MIS sale jumped Irom Rs. 50-60 lakh to Rs. 5
crore in the past two years. MIS has improved crop production and productivity and hence
the growth oI MIS selling would sustain till the next 10 years. A Jain dealer oI Palanpur
did not see good Iuture Ior MIS because oI high cost oI MIS and system operating problem.

In sum, dealers and subdealers play a major role in spread oI MIS technology in the rural
areas and have relevant background and experience in the business which is mostly
exclusive business. These dealers use other players like commission agents and agri input
sellers to penetrate markets at the Iarmer level. The competition was severe and each dealer
covered about 3-4 hundred hacs with / Iarmers being loanee Iarmers. Most oI the services
to the Iarmers were provided by the dealers and even promotion is carried out by them
though costs are shared by the companies.


227
Chapter 10
Purchase and Use of Micro-irrigation Equipment in Gujarat-Farmer perspectives

Introduction

The purchase and use oI agricultural equipment at the Iarmer level determines the
success or Iailure oI a new equipment and its marketing program. There have been
problems in adoption oI micro irrigation at Iarmer level and its promotion by various
agencies. What was seen as very relevant technology has got stuck in its low
adoption. ThereIore, this chapter examines the Iarmer level adoption and use oI this
equipment in Gujarat one oI the pioneer states in this technology. This chapter
examines the Iarmer purchase and use behaviour in micro irrigation equipment based
on a survey oI 34 Iarmers who owned this equipment. The district wise breakup oI
Iarmers surveyed is given in table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Distribution of MIS farmers by districts in Gujarat
District Block No. of farmers of total
Himmatnagar 3 8.82
Dhansura 2 5.88
Sabarkantha
Bayad 5 14.71
Palanpur 5 14.71 Banaskantha
Vadgam 4 11.76
Bhuj - -
Nakhtrana 10 29.41
Kachchh
Anjar 5 14.71
Total 34 100.00

So Iar as education oI MIS owners was concerned, a signiIicant chunk was secondary
literate, and 20 each primary, higher secondary and collegiate (table 10.2). In terms
oI land holding, 41 had holdings oI 4-10 hectares and another 23 between 10-25
hectares. Only 20 were holders oI 2-4 hectares and just 6 with holdings below two
hectares. Thus, most oI the MIS Iarmers were medium, large or very large holders
with 9 even holding as much as more than 25 hectares each (table 10.3).

Further, most oI these holdings were owned with only 15 being leased in that too by
large and very large holders. Almost the entire land was cultivated and most oI it
(more than 90) irrigated (table 10.4). Thus, the average operated land holding was
228
10 hectares and as much as 15 and 35 hectares Ior large and very large holders (table
10.5). Two-third oI these Iarmers depended on tubewells Ior irrigation oI more than
50 their lands and 94 oI the operated area was irrigated (table 10.6 and 10.7). 80
oI the operational land was irrigated with MIS equipment, with some area being
subject to both methods- drip and sprinkler (table 10.8). Thus, average land under
MIS per Iarmer was seven hectares and that under Ilood/Iurrow method just three
hectares (table 10.9).

Table 10.2: Distribution of MIS farmers by level of education
Educational level Total in total
Primary education (up to 7
th
std.) 7 20.59
Secondary education (8 to 10
th
std.) 10 29.41
Higher secondary education
(11 to 12
th
std.)
8 23.53
College level education and graduates 7 20.59
Post graduation 2 5.88
Total 34 100.00

Table 10.3: Classification of farmers according to their operational landholding
Category of farmers
Parameters
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25 ha >25 ha Total
Number oI Iarmers 2 7 14 8 3 34
oI Iarmers 5.88 20.59 41.18 23.53 8.82 100.00

Table 10.4: Distribution of farmers by land ownership (land in ha)
Category oI Iarmers
Land ownership
2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10
ha
10-25
ha
~25 ha All
Own land 3.12 23.84 96.75 99.40 88.80 311.91
Leased in land 0.00 0.00 5.80 24.80 16.00 46.60
Leased out land 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
Operational land 3.12 23.84 96.55 124.20 104.80 352.51
Cultivated land 3.00 23.84 96.07 121.20 104.40 348.51
Irrigated land 3.00 23.14 90.39 113.20 100.80 330.53

Table 10.5: Distribution of farmers by average land ownership and cultivation
(land in ha)
Category of farmers
Land ownership
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10
ha
10-25
ha
>25 ha All
Own land 1.56 3.41 6.91 12.43 29.60 9.17
Leased in land 0.00 0.00 0.41 3.10 5.33 1.37
Leased out land 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.18
Operational land 1.56 3.41 6.90 15.53 34.93 10.37
Cultivated land 1.50 3.41 6.86 15.15 34.80 10.25
Irrigated land 1.50 3.31 6.46 14.15 33.60 9.72
229

Table 10.6: Distribution of farmers by sources of irrigation
Category of farmers
Sources of irrigation
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25 ha >25 ha Total
CanalTW - - 1 1 - 2
CanalWell - - 2 - - 2
CanalWell TW - - - 1 1 2
TankWellTW - - 1 - - 1
TW 2 7 9 5 1 24
Well - - 1 - 1 2
WellTW - - - 1 - 1
Total 2 7 14 8 3 34
About 23.5 Iarmers have multiple sources oI irrigation.

Table 10.7: Distribution of farmers by sources of irrigation of total land (Land in
ha.)
Category of farmers
Sources of irrigation
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25 ha >25 ha Total
CanalTW - - 8.88 12.00 - 20.88
CanalWell - - 12.24 - - 12.24
CanalWell TW - - - 12.00 31.20 43.20
CanalTankTW - - - - - 0.00
TankWellTW - - 8.40 - - 8.40
TW 3.00 23.14 51.27 76.40 21.60 175.41
Well - - 9.60 - 48.00 57.60
WellTW - - 12.80 - 12.80
Total 3.00 23.14 90.39 113.20 100.80 330.53

Table 10.8: Distribution of farmers by method of irrigation (Land in ha.)

Category of farmers
Irrigation method
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25 ha >25 ha Total
Drip 3.00 12.92 53.31 52.96 44.32 166.51
Sprinkler 0.00 0.80 0.00 48.00 0.00 48.80
Drip sprinkler 0.00 0.00 6.72 0.00 12.00 18.72
Total MIS 3.00 13.72 60.03 100.96 56.32 234.03
Flood/Iurrow 0.00 9.42 30.2 15.04 44.48 99.14
Some Iarmers use both sprinkler and drip system on the same piece oI land. Use oI
sprinkler is subject to amount oI rainIall, especially in KhariI season.

Table 10.9: Average land under different methods of irrigation (land in ha.)

Category of farmers
Irrigation method
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25 ha >25 ha Total
MIS 1.50 1.96 4.29 12.62 18.77 6.88
Flood/Iurrow 0.00 1.35 2.16 1.88 14.83 2.92

230
On the whole, 65 oI the Iarmers had part oI their land under MIS and another 35
their entire land under MIS and they mostly used electric motors (99) Ior extraction
oI groundwater (table 10.10 and 10.11). More than 50 Iarmers has one electric
motor each and another 24 two motors each with rest owning more than two motors
each (table 10.12). This was so given the depth oI groundwater in the regions (table
10.13).

Table 10.10: Distribution of farmers by Use of MIS
Use No oI Iarmers oI Iarmers
Entire crop land under MIS 12 35.29
Part oI the crop land under MIS 22 64.71
Total 34 100.00

Table 10.11: Distribution of irrigated area by water extraction mechanism used
Water extraction devices Numbers Land under irrigation oI irrigated land
Electric motors 72 328.21 99.17
Diesel pump 1 2.88 0.87

Table 10.12: Distribution of farmers by number of water extraction devices used
Electric
motors
Number oI
Iarmers
oI
Iarmers
Diesel
pump sets
Number oI
Iarmers
oI
Iarmers
1 15 44.12 1 1 2.94
2 8 23.53
3 5 14.71
4 4 11.76
10 1 2.94
Total 33 97.06 1 1 2.94

Table: 10.13 Distribution of farmers by depth of water table
District Block Water level (feet)
Himmatnagar 35-60
Dhansura 30-40
Sabarkantha
Bayad 30-40
Palanpur 100-160 Banaskantha
Vadgam 70-80
Bhuj 350-400
Nakhtrana 250-350
Kachchh
Anjar 400-440

Most oI the cropped area was under khariI crops and perennial crops oI Iruits (table
10.14). The major crops under MIS were groundnut, cotton, potato, mango and
papaya and other horticultural crops (table 10.15). 95 the MIS area was on
landholdings oI above 10 hectares with only 5 being on holdings oI below 10
hectares.
231
Table 10.14: Cropping Pattern of MIS farmers (Area in hectares)
Category of
farmers
Crops
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25
ha
>25 ha Total of
seasonal
area
of
gross
cropped
area
KhariI crops
Cotton 0.00 1.36 35.75 13.68 27.60 78.39 37.30 19.20
G'nut 0.00 1.20 16.24 32.48 14.80 64.72 30.79 15.85
Castor 0.00 0.80 4.40 6.00 6.80 18.00 8.56 4.41
Fennel 0.00 0.00 6.72 2.40 8.40 17.52 8.34 4.29
Others 0.00 6.30 9.88 10.00 5.36 31.54 15.01 7.73
Season total 0.0 9.66 72.99 64.56 62.96 210.17 100.00 51.48
Rabi crops
Potato 0.00 0.00 11.52 26.08 37.60 75.20 69.42 18.42
Wheat 0.00 1.84 5.60 9.20 7.92 24.56 22.67 6.02
Others 0.00 1.04 6.12 1.40 0.00 8.56 7.90 2.10
Season total 0.0 2.88 23.24 36.68 45.52 108.32 100.00 26.53
Summer crops
Bajri 0.00 2.84 2.72 8.80 0.00 14.36 61.16 3.52
G'nut 0.00 0.00 0.72 2.00 2.00 4.72 20.10 1.16
Others 0.00 0.00 1.20 3.20 0.00 4.40 18.74 1.08
Season total 0.00 2.84 4.64 14.00 2.00 23.48 100.00 5.75
Perennial crops
Mango 0.00 2.40 4.40 14.40 0.00 21.20 31.98 5.19
Papaya 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.72 14.72 22.20 3.61
Vegetables 2.60 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.16 9.29 1.51
Others 0.40 5.62 4.60 11.60 2.00 24.22 36.53 5.93
Season total 3.00 11.58 9.00 26.00 16.72 66.30 100.00 16.24
All crops 3.00 26.96 109.87 141.24 127.20 408.27 100.00
oI gross
cropped area 0.73 6.60 26.91 34.59 31.16 100.00


So Iar as source oI inIormation Ior MIS technology was concerned, a large chunk
each oI the Iarmers had come to know oI the technology Irom neighbouring Iarmers,
company dealers and Irom both oI the channels each (26 and 17 each) (table
10.16). A Iarmer each had also learnt about it Irom NGOs, GGRC advertisement and
agricultural Iair each.









232
Table 10.15: distribution of area irrigated by crops under MIS (Area in hacs)

Category of
farmers
Crops
< 2 ha 2-4 ha 4-10 ha 10-25
ha
>25 ha Total of
seasonal
area
of
gross
MIS
area
KhariI crops
G'nut 0.00 0.80 12.00 26.00 12.00 50.80 43.90 17.26
Cotton 0.00 0.40 25.43 12.48 4.00 42.31 36.57 14.37
Castor 0.00 0.00 5.68 4.00 0.00 9.68 8.37 3.29
Fennel 0.00 0.00 3.12 2.40 0.00 5.52 4.77 1.88
Others 0.00 1.40 0.00 6.00 0.00 7.40 6.40 2.51
Season total 0.00 2.60 46.23 50.88 16.00 115.71 100.00 39.31
Rabi crops
Potato 0.00 0.00 11.52 39.28 37.60 88.40 92.70 30.03
Wheat 0.00 0.80 0.24 4.40 0.00 5.44 5.70 1.85
Others 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.80 0.00 1.52 1.59 0.52
Season total 0.00 0.80 12.48 44.48 37.60 95.36 100.00 32.39
Summer crops
Bajri 0.00 0.00 2.40 9.60 0.00 12.00 59.17 4.08
Mung 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 5.20 25.64 1.77
Others 0.00 0.00 1.08 2.00 0.00 3.08 15.19 1.05
Season total 0.00 0.00 3.48 16.80 0.00 20.28 100.00 6.89
Perennial crops
Mango 0.00 2.40 4.40 14.40 0.00 21.20 33.63 7.20
Papaya 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.72 14.72 23.35 5.00
Vegetables 2.60 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.80 9.20 1.97
Others 0.40 5.52 4.60 8.80 2.00 21.32 33.82 7.24
Season total 3.00 11.12 9.00 23.20 16.72 63.04 100.00 21.41
All crops 3.00 14.52 71.19 135.36 70.32 294.39 100.00
oI grossed
MIS area
1.02 4.93 24.18 45.98 23.89 100.00

















233
Table 10.16: Distribution of farmers by sources of information for MIS
Sources of information Number of
farmers
of
farmers
Neighbour Iarmers 9 25.71
Approached by company dealer 6 17.14
Neighbour Iarmers and approached by company
dealer 6 17.14
Relatives 2 5.71
Other Iarmers 2 5.71
Agriculture Iair 1 2.86
Former dealer 1 2.86
Neighbour Iarmers, relatives and approached by
company dealer 1 2.86
Neighbour Iarmers and news paper 1 2.86
Relatives and GGRCL advertisement 1 2.86
GGRCL advertisement and development
organization 1 2.86
Approached by company dealer and development
organization 1 2.86
Neighbour Iarmers, and development organization 1 2.86
Neighbour Iarmers, newspaper and TV 1 2.86
Other Iarmers and TV 1 2.86
Total 35 100.00

Water saving, energy saving and solving labour problem were major reasons behind
MIS purchase. It was Iollowed by economical, eIIective and careIul use oI Iertilizers
and pesticides Ior buying MIS. Farmers selected sprinkler system in water rich and
sandy soil areas and preIerred drip in water scare areas (table 10.17).

Table 10.17: Distribution of farmers by reasons for buying MIS (multiple
responses)
Reasons No of farmers of farmers
Water saving 31 88.57
Energy saving 23 65.71
Labour saving/solving labour problem 19 54.29
Increase crop productivity 18 51.43
Reduce Iertilizer cost 9 25.71
Soil improvement 3 8.57
Increase area under irrigation 3 8.57
Solving weeding problem 3 8.57
Commercial crop cultivation 2 5.71
Water quality problem 1 2.86
Good soil aeration 1 2.86
Saving land levelling cost 1 2.86
Reduce production cost 1 2.86

234
Major brands were Jain, NetaIim, Prixit and Captain and Nandan in terms oI
proportion oI Iarmers ad NetaIim, EPC, Captain and Nandan and Jain in that order in
terms share oI area under MIS (table 10.18). Sprinkler head oI Nandan and lateral
pipes oI Captain are sold together since both the companies have collaboration in
selling sprinklers system. Thus, about halI oI the Iarmers used a single brand and
another halI multiple brands oI MIS equipment (table 10.19). Thus, Iour brands-
NetaIim, Jain, Prixit, and Nandan were the major players in terms oI area covered
(table 10.20). The major reasons Ior preIerring a particular brand were good product
quality and/or ISI standards, good experience oI other Iarmers, company approaching
Iarmers and the brand image besides relationship with dealer, good services and low
cost oI the equipment and documentation responsibility being taken by the dealer
(table 10.21).

Table 10.18: Distribution of farmers by Brand of MIS owned/purchased
Brands
No. of
farmers
of
farmers
Area
(ha)
of
TBA`
NetaIim & EPC 1 2.94 48.00 20.34
NetaIim 5 14.71 38.64 16.37
Captain & Nandan 3 8.82 34.00 14.40
Jain 8 23.53 25.20 10.68
Parixit and Non-ISI 3 8.82 17.60 7.46
Jain, Narmada, Captain &
Nandan
1 2.94 15.20 6.44
Jain, Parixit, Plastro and
Non-ISI
1 2.94 14.80 6.27
Parixit 5 14.71 13.80 5.85
NetaIim, Captain & Nandan 1 2.94 10.80 4.58
Jain and Parixit 2 5.88 8.40 3.56
Jain, NetaIim and Plastro 1 2.94 4.67 1.98
Parixit and Plastro 1 2.94 1.92 0.81
Narmada and Plastro 1 2.94 1.60 0.68
Everest 1 2.94 1.40 0.59
Total 34 100.00 236.03 100.00
* Total brand area

Table 10.19: Distribution of farmers by MIS brand Ownership pattern
Brand ownership
No. of farmers of farmers
Single brand ownership 18 52.94
Multibrand ownership 16 47.06
Total 34 100.00

235

Table 10.20: Distribution of farmers by Brand wise area under MIS
Brand
Area (ha) of MIS area
Parixit 38.76 16.42
NetaIim 79.04 33.49
Jain 34.07 14.43
Captain & Nandan 35.20 14.91
EPC 18.00 7.63
Jain, Narmada, Captain & Nandan 15.20 6.44
Non ISI 6.80 2.88
Plastro 6.76 2.86
Everest 1.40 0.59
Narmada 0.80 0.34
Total 236.03 100.00

Table 10.21: Distribution of farmers by reason for selection of particular brand
(multiple responses)
Reasons No of
farmers
of
farmers
Good product quality and/or ISI standards 11 31.43
Good experience oI other Iarmers/relatives 10 28.57
The only company approached Iarmers 8 22.86
Brand image 7 20.00
Relationship with dealer (Iamily relationship/Iriend/village
Iellow) 6 17.14
Good services 5 14.29
Dealer accepted documentation processing responsibility Ior
bank Iinance 4 11.43
Purchased low cost product because oI non availability oI
subsidy 4 11.43
Competitive price 3 8.57
Good product design 3 8.57
Low cost 2 5.71
Good system eIIiciency 2 5.71
Dealer succeeded in providing subsidy 2 5.71
Knew only one company in the market at the time oI purchase 2 5.71
Long liIe 1 2.86
Former dealership experience 1 2.86
Motivated by Iarm demonstration 1 2.86
Because oI Israel company 1 2.86
Business contact with Jalgaon traders 1 2.86
Other company dealers Iailed in providing subsidy 1 2.86

Popular brand names in local areas
In case oI drip irrigation system, NetaIim and Plastro were more popular in
Himmatnagar, Dhansura and Bayad talukas oI Sabarkantha district, Iollowed by Jain.
236
In Banaskantha district, NetaIim and Jain were more popular in Palanpur and Vadgam
talukas. In Kutch district, Parixit was more popular in Anjar taluka, Jain and Parixit
were more popular in Nakhtrana, and NetaIim was more popular in Mandvi taluka. In
case oI sprinkler system, Captain and Nandan were more popular in BK and SK
districts. Normally, these two brand products were getting sold together (Captain
pipes and Nandan sprinkler heads). Sprinkler irrigation was not a practice in Kutch
district mainly because oI high wind velocity. It shows that there is a regional
diIIerentiation in brand name. Brand name popularity highly depends on dealers`
relationship with Iarmers and eIIective and eIIicient delivery oI aIter sale services.

Problems faced by farmers at the time of MIS purchase

Average price recently had been Rs. 1,35,417 (2007) per hectare and Rs. 75, 000 per
hectare over the years on an average (table 10.22). Jain was the costliest Iollowed by
NetaIim, EPC and Captian. The lowest cost was non-ISI local brands (table 10.23).

Table 10.22: Distribution of farmers by Year of purchase and avg. purchase
price of MIS equipment
Year No of farmers of farmers Average price (Rs./ha)
1991-92 1 2.86 83,333
1993-94 1 2.86 8,333
1999 1 2.86 1,25,000
2001 1 2.86 20,833
2002 2 5.71 30,625
2003 6 17.14 57,083
2004 3 8.57 53,484
2005 9 25.71 80,078
2006 9 25.71 93,326
2007 2 5.71 1,35,417
Total 35 100.00 75,233

The cost oI MIS varies Irom crop to crop. It is higher Ior narrow spacing crops such
as potato and lower Ior wider spacing crops such as castor and cotton. However, the
return on investment is higher in commercial crops and lower in traditional crops or
subsistence crops. Nearly 83 Iarmers did not Iace any problem at the time oI
purchasing MIS, 12 Iarmers got late delivery and 6 Iarmers could not get the
system in time due to delay in processing oI documents by the MIS companies.
237
Farmers Iaced major problem with Jain dealers, especially in Bayad taluka oI S. K.
district.

Table 10.23: Distribution of farmers by brand wise average purchase price of
MIS
MIS brand No. of
farmers
of
farmers
Average price
(Rs./ha)
Jain 9 25.71 1,01,942
NetaIim 6 17.14 98,863
EPC 1 2.86 83,333
Jain, Narmada, Captain &
Nandan
1 2.86 65,789
Captain & Nandan 4 11.43 58,333
Parixit 11 31.43 56,374
Everest 1 2.86 55,357
Narmada 1 2.86 43,750
Non-ISI 1 2.86 20,833
Total
35 100.00 75,233

Table 10.24: Region wise purchase price of MIS
Region No. of farmers of farmers Avg. Purchase price (Rs. /ha.)
SK 10 28.57 83,924
Himmatnagar 3 8.57 83,643
Dhansura 2 5.71 45,833
Bayad 5 14.29 99,329
BK. 9 25.71 76,819
Palanpur 5 14.29 80,117
Vadgam 4 11.43 72,697
Kutch 16 45.71 68,910
Bhuj 1 2.86 20,833
Anjar 5 14.29 70,357
Nakhtrana 10 28.57 72,994
Overall 35 100.00 75,233

Surprisingly, 37 Iarmers did not receive any aIter sales service, another 20 only
need based and another 11 agronomical, technical and acidiIication services (table
10.25). Only large players like Jain, NetaIim and Prixit provided some aIter sales
services, not the local companies (table 10.26). No Iarmer was getting aIter sale
services beIore GGRCL intervention. The concept oI aIter sale services has been
introduced aIter implementation oI GGRCL subsidy scheme. GGRCL has included
the aIter sale services, especially agronomical and technical (repair and maintenance)
in its MIS package being oIIered to Iarmers who are availing subsidy. Company wise
perIormance oI aIter sale services is presented in table 10.26. Companies are very
poor in providing agronomical services but good in providing technical services. This
238
is mainly because local dealers are made responsible Ior technical services while
agronomical services have to be provided by the respective company. Companies
appoint agronomist on workload basis. These agronomists have to cover larger area
under their jurisdiction and hence sometimes they could not visit all client Iarmers`
Iarms but provide telephonic services to the Iarmers. They prepared and Iollowed
their own schedule oI visit as a part oI their routine job responsibilities. Many
companies lack adequate number oI agronomists. Kutch Iarmers Ielt that agronomical
services are not required on regular basis and hence agronomical services charges
should be removed Irom the unit cost oI MIS to reduce Iinancial burden on Iarmers.

Table 10.25: Distribution of farmers by after sale services facility
Nature of after sale service No. of
farmers
of
farmers
No service 13 37.14
Farmers` need based services 7 20.00
Agronomical, technical, Iertigation & acidiIication 4 11.43
Agronomical 3 8.57
Agronomical and technical (O, R&M) 3 8.57
Technical 2 5.71
R&M, Iertigation & acidiIication 1 2.86
Farmers` need based services, Iertigation &
acidiIication 1 2.86
Do not require services because oI hired Iarm
manager 1 2.86
Total
35 100.00

Life of MIS and replacement

Since the average liIe oI the MIS equipment was 10 years oI more in case oI most
brands (table 10.27), the Iarmers replaced it only once and that too a part oI the
system Ior minor dysIunctions or bought another system to bring larger area under the
system (table 10.28, 10.29 and 10.30).










239
Table 10.26: Company wise distribution of farmers by after sale services
Company Nature of after sale service No. of
farmers
of
farmers
Captain & Nandan No service 4 11.43
EPC No service 1 2.86
Everest No service 1 2.86
Jain No service
Agronomical
Agronomical and technical
Agronomical, Iertigation &
acidiIication
Technical
2
3
2
1
1
5.71
8.57
5.71
2.86
2.86
Narmada No service 1 2.86
NetaIim Agronomical, R&M, Iertigation &
acidiIication
Farmers` need based services
R&M, Iertigation & acidiIication
Farmers` need based services,
Iertigation & acidiIication
2

2
1
1
5.71

5.71
2.86
2.86
Non-ISI No service 1 2.86
Parixit No service
A Iarmer does not require any
services as he has hired a Iarm
manager on salary
Farmers` need based service
Only technical service
Agronomical and technical
2
1

5
2
1
5.71
2.86

14.29
5.71
2.86
Jain, Narmada,
Captain & Nandan
No services beIore GGRCL but it is
available aIter GGRCL
1 2.86
All 35 100.00

Table 10.27: Company wise average life of MIS equipment
Average life (years) Company
Drip Sprinkler
Captain & Nandan - 10
EPC 10-15 -
Everest 10 -
Jain 8-10 -
Jain (lateral only) 10-15 -
Narmada 3 -
NetaIim 5-10 -
Parixit 10-12 -
Jain, Narmada, Captain & Nandan 7-8 7-8
All ISI brands 10 10
Non-ISI 3 -




240
Table 10.28: Distribution of farmers by replacement of the MIS system/parts
Particulars No. of farmers of farmers
Replaced system or parts oI the system 12 34.29
Increased area under MIS 15 42.86
No replacement 8 22.86
Total 35 100.00

Table 10.29: Distribution of farmers by frequency of replacement
Replacement times No. of farmers of farmers
One time 11 31.43
Three times 1 2.86
Increased area under MIS 15 42.86
No replacement 8 22.86
Total 35 100.00

Table 10.30: Distribution of farmers by reasons for replacement of MIS
Reasons No of
farmers
of
farmers
DysIunctional Iertigation cocks 3 8.57
Lateral pipes damaged by Dogs 1 2.86
DysIunctional take oII pipes 1 2.86
Bushing and Iilter ring have to be replaced every year 1 2.86
GM valves because oI theIt 1 2.86
Switched to ISI brands and increased the capacity oI
Iilter due to sand problem
1

2.86
Switched to ISI brands 1 2.86
PVC valve handle breakage 1 2.86
Replaced old system 1 2.86
To adjust crop spacing due to crop change 1 2.86
Increased area under MIS 15 42.86
no replacement 8 22.86
Total 35 100.00

Purchase of MIS

Most oI the Iarmers (80) bought the equipment Irom dealers Iollowed by sub-
dealers (11). One Iarmer each bought it Irom manuIacturer, local shop, and Iarmer
each (3 each) (table 10.31). The place oI purchase was district or block headquarter
in 60 and 35 case respectively (table 10.32).2/3
rd
oI Iarmers had bought it on
credit and 1/3
rd
on cash payment basis (table 10.33). The credit was mostly Irom
national banks or local co-operative or rural banks (table 10.34). The amount oI credit
was linked with the amount oI subsidy in majority cases. All nationalized banks
credits were linked with subsidy. Farmers got average 63.72 credit. The amount oI
241
credit under GGRCL was 45 and that under National Horticultural Board (NHB)
around 20 oI the total cost oI MIS.

Table 10.31: Company wise source of purchase of MIS equipment
Source
Company
Manufacturer Dealers Sub
dealers
Local
shops
Farmers
Captain & Nandan - 3 (8.57) - - 1 (2.86)
EPC - 1 (2.86) - - -
Everest 1 (2.86) - - -
Jain - 7 (20.00) 1 (2.86) - --
Jain (lateral only) - 1 (2.86) - - -
NetaIim - 6 (17.14) - --- -
Parixit - 8 (22.86) 3 (8.57) - -
Jain, Narmada,
Captain & Nandan
- 1 (2.86) - - -
Narmada - 1 (2.86) - - -
Non-ISI - - - 1 (2.86) -
Total 1 (2.86) 28
(80.00)
4 (11.43) 1 (2.86) 1 (2.86)
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage oI Iarmer

Tale 10.32: Distribution of farmers by place of purchase of MIS
Place
Company
Local
town
Nearby
town
Block
headquarter
District head
quarter
Captain & Nandan 1 (2.86) 2 (5.71) 1 (2.86)
EPC 1 (2.86)
Everest 1 (2.86)
Jain 5 (14.29) 4 (11.43)
NetaIim 1 (2.86) 5 (14.29)
Parixit 3 (8.57) 8 (22.86)
Jain, Narmada, Captain
& Nandan
1 (2.86)
Narmada 1 (2.86)
Non-ISI 1 (2.86)
Total 1 (2.86) 1 (2.86) 12 (34.29) 21 (60.00)
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage oI Iarmer












242

Table 10.33: Company wise purchase pattern of farmers for MIS
Purchase
Company
Cash
(no. of
farmers)
of
farmers
Credit
(no. of
farmers)
of
farmers
Captain & Nandan - - 3 8.57
EPC - - 1 2.86
Everest 1 2.86 - -
Jain 2 5.71 7 20.00
Narmada 1 2.86 - -
Netafim 1 2.86 5 14.29
Non-ISI 1 2.86 - -
Parixit 5 14.29 6 17.14
Jain, Narmada, Captain
& Nandan
- - 1 2.86
Total 11 31.43 23 65.71

Table 10.34: Distribution of farmers by credit facilities for MIS
Sources No oI
Iarmers
oI
credit
Iarmers
Avg.
amount
oI
credit
(Rs.)
Avg.
period
oI
credit
(years)
Avg.
number oI
installment
(numbers)
Avg.
annual
rate oI
interest
()
Avg.
amount
oI
margin
money
(Rs.)
District/village
cooperative
banks
5 21.74 208,250 6.40 6.40 11.5 16,650
Nationalized
banks and
LDB
1 4.35 175,000 8.00 16.00 10.0 17,500
Farmers 1 4.35 20,000 0.50 2.00 No
interest
20,000
Gramin
(Rural) bank
2 8.70 89,125 5.00 10.00 10.0 13,375
Nationalized
banks
12 52.17 419,167 4.08 4.82 9.79 79,792
Relatives 2 8.70 100,000 1.00 Not Iixed 6.00 &
no
interest
100,000
Total 23 100.00 288,891 4.57 6.15 10.05 56,739









243
Table 10.35: Distribution of farmers by frequency of installment
Nature oI installment Number oI Iarmers oI credit Iarmers
Annual installment 14 60.87
Six monthly installment 5 21.74
Not yet Iixed 1 4.35
No Iixed installment 3 13.04
Total 23 100.00

Reasons for credit and margin money paid

Shortage oI Iunds was the major reason accompanies by subsidy Iacility Ior availing
oI a loan Ior MIS (table 10.36). Land mortgage was the only security in most cases
(table 10.37). On average Iramers paid 12.52 margin money. Credit source wise
margin money is shown in table 10.38. No margin money was required in NHB
subsidized scheme. Average 20 margin money was required in availing bank credit
in all other subsidy schemes in general. Farmers paid 5 management Iees to
GGRCL through banks and banks provided 50 credit. Except management Iees, no
other margin money was required under GGRCL subsidy scheme. Cooperative bank
took average 5 margin money. Land development bank took 10 amount towards
margin money. About 69 oI the Iarmers had availed oI subsidy largely through
GGRCL and in some case through NHB (table 10.38 and 10.39). GGRCL provided
50 subsidy, NHB provided 22 subsidy and other government schemes provided
8-36 subsidy. Farmers had to make arrangement Ior only 50 amount to get the
beneIit oI GGRCL subsidy as they received Iore-ended subsidy. While in case oI all
other government subsidy schemes, Iarmers had to make arrangement Ior 100
amount as they received back ended subsidy.

Table 10.36: Distribution of farmers by reasons for taking credit
Reasons Number oI Iarmers oI Iarmers
Money shortage 12 52.17
Money shortage and low interest rate 1 4.35
Money shortage and subsidy attraction 5 21.74
Money shortage and easy to get loan 3 13.04
Money shortage, low interest rate and crop loan 2 8.70
Total 23 100.00






244
Table 10.37: Distribution of farmers by collateral/securities required getting loan
Collateral/securities Number oI Iarmers oI Iarmers
Land mortgage 20 86.96
Mutual trust 3 13.04
Total 23 100.00

Table 10.38: Distribution of farmers by Subsidy for MIS
BeneIit oI subsidy No. oI Iarmers oI Iarmers
Availed subsidy 24 68.57
Not availed subsidy 11 31.43
Total 35 100.00

Table 10.39: Distribution of farmers by scheme wise subsidy availed
Name of subsidy scheme Number of farmers of farmers Subsidy
GGRCL 15 42.86 50
NHB 2 5.71 22
Others 3 8.57 8, 30, 36
Overall 20 57.14 -

Repair and maintenance and major problems faced

About 74 Iarmers either did not incur any repair and maintenance expenditure or
incurred negligible amount. The rest 26 Iarmers incurred average oI Rs 218 per
hectare towards R&M. It shows that R&M cost is not a major problem Ior most oI the
Iarmers. Major problems Iaced by Iarmers included damage to equipment by animals
and rodents and poor aIter sales service resulting in low operational eIIiciency (table
10.40).

Table 10.40: Distribution of farmers by major problems in MIS (multiple
responses)
Problems No. farmers of farmers
Damaged by rats and other animals 19 54.29
No problems 10 28.57
Poor aIter sale services 9 25.71
Low working eIIiciency 5 14.29
Clogging oI drippers 1 2.86
High cost and hence require more care 1 2.86
InIormation gap between Iarmers and MIS companies 1 2.86
Leakage oI valves 1 2.86
Minor quality related problem 1 2.86
Nematode problem 1 2.86
Not suitable Ior diesel engine 1 2.86
System Iailed because oI sand siltation 1 2.86
System operating problem 1 2.86
TheIt problem 1 2.86
245

Farmers` knowledge and experience of dealing with GGRCL

Out oI 35, 71 Iarmers had knowledge about GGRCL and 69 Iarmers had taken
beneIit oI its subsidy. 51 Iarmers had a good experience, 23 did not have direct
contact with GGRCL and equal percentage oI Iarmers did not have any experience oI
dealing with GGRCL (table 10.41). Those who reported good experience considered
Iollowing reasons; easy access to inIormation, putting eIIorts in building awareness
and promoting MIS, 50 subsidy beneIit, quick approval, immediate release oI
subsidy amount, reduction oI management charges Irom 5 to 2.5, no ceiling on
MIS area coverage, no corruption, proactive, and prompt attention to Iarmers`
complaints, actual (physical) implementation, good working system, strict monitoring
and inspection, etc. (table 10.42)

Table 10.41: Distribution of farmers by their experience of dealing with GGRCL
Experience No oI Iarmers oI Iarmers
Good 18 51.43
No direct contact 9 25.71
No experience 8 22.86

Table 11.42: Distribution of farmers by reasons for good experience of dealing
with GGRCL
Reasons No oI
Iarmers
oI
Iarmers
Farmers` complain redresses system is very good 4 11.43
Pro Iarmer and problem solving approach 3 8.57
50 subsidy beneIit and actual installation 2 5.71
Easy access to subsidy, Iarmers Iriendly, mgt Iees reduced to 2.5
Irom 5 1 2.86
Putting eIIorts in building awareness and promoting MIS 1 2.86
No restriction on area coverage & easy to get subsidy 1 2.86
No corruption, actual implementation 1 2.86
Quick release oI subsidy 1 2.86
Good working system and quick approval oI MIS application. 1 2.86
Good monitoring, inspection and no malpractice 1 2.86
Easy access to inIormation 1 2.86

A Iew Iarmers have suggested that GGRCL should not take management Iees Irom
Iarmers. A Iarmer reported that though unit cost oI MIS oI all companies is same,
Parixit was taking charge oI Iitting accessories Irom Iarmers iI the material was
Ialling short oI the design estimate, while all other GGRCL registered companies
246
were providing it Iree oI cost. Another Iarmer reported that Iarmers had to pay 5 oI
MIS cost estimate towards management Iees beIore initiating the bank Iinance
procedure in case oI loanee Iarmers. Instead oI it, banks should give written assurance
to loanee Iarmers about getting bank loan and then only they should pay management
Iees to GGRCL to avoid uncertainty about getting bank Iinance. There are cases oI
system Iailure. A Iarmer suggested that GGRCL should introduce sand siltation test
beIore approving the system in alluvium and sandy soils. Like soil and water quality
testing, water test to know Ioreign matters should be conducted beIore MIS suppliers
design the MIS. It would help them to design siltation prooI system.


To sum up, 65 oI the Iarmers had part oI their land under MIS and another 35
their entire land under MIS and they mostly used electric motors (99) Ior extraction
oI groundwater. More than 50 Iarmers has one electric motor each and another 24
two motors each with rest owning more than two motors each. This was so given the
depth oI groundwater in the regions. The major crops under MIS were groundnut,
cotton, potato, mango and papaya and other horticultural crops. 95 the MIS area
was on landholdings oI above 10 hectares with only 5 being on holdings oI below
10 hectares. So Iar as source oI inIormation Ior MIS technology was concerned, a
large chunk each oI the Iarmers had come to know oI the technology Irom
neighbouring Iarmers, company dealers and Irom both oI the channels each (26 and
17 each).

Water saving, energy saving and solving labour problem were major reasons behind
MIS purchase. It was Iollowed by economical, eIIective and careIul use oI Iertilizers
and pesticides Ior buying MIS. Farmers selected sprinkler system in water rich and
sandy soil areas and preIerred drip in water scare areas. Major brands were Jain,
NetaIim, Prixit and Captain and Nandan in terms oI proportion oI Iarmers and
NetaIim, EPC, Captain and Nandan and Jain in that order in terms oI share oI area
under MIS. Four brands- NetaIim, Jain, Prixit, and Nandan were the major players in
terms oI area covered. The major reasons Ior preIerring a particular brand were good
product quality and/or ISI standards, good experience oI other Iarmers, company
approaching Iarmers and the brand image besides relationship with dealer, good
247
services and low cost oI the equipment and documentation responsibility being taken
by the dealer.

Most oI the Iarmers (80) bought the equipment Irom dealers Iollowed by sub-
dealers (11). One Iarmer each bought it Irom manuIacturer, local shop, and Iarmer
each (3 each). The place oI purchase was district or block headquarter in 60 and
35 case respectively. 2/3
rd
oI Iarmers had bought it on credit and 1/3
rd
on cash
payment basis. 71 Iarmers had knowledge about GGRCL and 69 Iarmers had
taken beneIit oI its subsidy. 51 Iarmers had a good experience, 23 did not have
direct contact with GGRCL and equal percentage oI Iarmers did not have any
experience oI dealing with GGRCL


































248
Chapter 11
Conclusions and recommendations

Agricultural machinery and implements are an important Iactor in agricultural
production and productivity enhancement. There are direct as well as indirect eIIects
oI agricultural machinery and implements on productivity through better use oI other
inputs, more eIIicient and timely completion oI agricultural operations and increase in
cropping intensity. But, the adoption oI machines is the result oI many Iactors at the
Iarm level like size oI land holding, irrigation, labour, credit and risk orientation and
socio-economic proIile oI the Iarmer. Still, level oI mechanization oI agriculture in
India remains low. Except a Iew states like Punjab, Haryana, U.P., Rajasthan and
Tamilnadu, the area under Iive major crops being tilled with tractors is low and, that
too, is largely with hired tractors. Though it is not necessary Ior each Iarmer to own a
tractor, but hired use also shows that there is scope Ior higher penetration oI tractors
provided their viable use can be made possible. This is also reIlected in the number
oI tractors per 1000 hac oI operated area. In this context, the study has Iound certain
gaps in business strategies and promotional policies oI the state and development
agencies which need to be plugged and these are detailed below Ior the three major
segments oI the agricultural machinery industry:

Tractors

The value chain Ior tractors involved manuIacturers and dealers with Iarmers at the
user end. The dealers had an important role to deliver and service the product and thus
were crucial link in the chain.

Most common use oI tractors was 401-600 hours per annum with 30 Iarmers
reporting that. The next major group was the one which used it between 1001-1500
hours per annum which is more than the minimum use oI tractor Ior viability. Further,
KhariI had more tractor usage than Rabi largely due to paddy cultivation. But, still, on
an average, the tractor was used only Ior 751 hours which is much below the
NABARD norm Ior viable use oI the machine. It was surprising that about 9
Iarmers used it Ior less than 200 hours and another 13 Ior less than 400 hours
249
altogether during the year. 70 oI the owners were using it Ior less than 1000 hours
a minimum prescribed by NABARD Ior viability.

Given small size oI holdings, it is necessary to encourage custom hiring oI
agricultural machinery especially tractors and combines to raise productivity while
maintaining costs oI cultivation. This can be done by encouraging panchayats, PACS
and agricultural machinery cooperatives/companies, clinics or even private
entrepreneurs with loans, training and subsidies. Easier and wider availability oI
credit Ior second hand machines can also come in handy to deepen agricultural
mechanization. Since every village now owns 15-20 tractors in northern region, it is
necessary to establish agricultural machinery service centres at the village level or the
cluster oI villages level (IASRI, 2006).

A study oI training and testing Iacilities Ior Iarm machinery at the state level in 2000-
2001 revealed that all the 11 major states, except Bihar, had an institute oI Iarm
machinery training and testing or a an agricultural university which were providing
training to Iarmers. But, in many state like Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, UP, WB, and Bihar, Iacilities were inadequate. Further, there were very
Iew programmes Ior Iarmers compared with those Ior extension workers and no state,
except Assam and Karnataka, had trained more than 1000 Iarmers over 10 years
(1991-2000) (Singh et al, 2008).

Also, contract Iarming can encourage mechanisation as the crops grown under this
arrangement are new, more amenable to mechanization and come with good
agricultural practices which cut costs or raise yields and productivity (IASRI, 2006).

Combine harvestors

The value chain Ior combine harvestors was short with direct selling oI the product by
manuIacturers to the owner users or custom service providers. The product was even
tailor made Ior speciIic requirement oI speciIic buyers. The communication between
seller and buyer was direct and trust based.

250
Combine harvestor is a costly machine and requires good and careIul usage to attain
viability. As seen in average annual use Iigures, in Punjab and Gujarat, it is not being
used enough (only around 50 days in a year) compared with Maharashtra where it
was primarily bought Ior custom hiring and was used Ior as much as 90 days. In
order to ensure its viability there is need to exercise caution in its Iunding and
ownership. Banks should insist on deIinite business plans beIore approving loans Ior
Iarmers so that second hand combine markets like tractors do not emerge in India.
There is need to provide Ior collective purchase oI combine harvestors by Iarmers`
groups or PACS like tractors so that local availability during times oI need especially
during peaks oI harvesting seasons can be ensured.

Further, due to the labour displacing nature oI combine harvesting, there is a need to
exercise caution in promotion oI combine harvestors. It not only ends up displacing
labour but also causes shortage oI Iodder which happened in Punjab this year. But
despite this obvious cost and time advantage Irom harvester combines, the current
season has witnessed something unusual: Manual harvesting is back and combine are
out oI Iavour suddenly. This time, not more than 40 oI the wheat has been combine-
harvested. The main reason given by them is better straw recovery. One acre yields 20
quintals oI wheat and an equal quantity oI straw. Through manual harvesting, one can
recover almost this entire straw, whereas the combine-reaper would salvage only 10-
12 quintals. This is because the combine operates 30-40 cm above the ground and the
leIt-over stalk gives less straw. In normal years, straw yields do not matter much. But
this time, with straw prices ruling at Rs 400-500 per quintal (against last year's Rs
200-300), Iarmers have Iound it worthwhile to invest extra time and money in manual
harvesting, instead oI combines (HBL, 2007).This can hit the dairy industry hard
which is an important allied sector crucial Ior local livelihoods in many parts oI India.

Micro irrigation

The value chain Ior micro irrigation equipment involved dealers between
manuIacturers and Iarmers besides the state agency GGRC- which promoted and
Iacilitated the purchase with subsidy.

251
Farmers are now becoming more aware about the beneIits oI micro irrigation system.
They know that in the increasingly water scarce environment, only micro irrigation
could give them sustainable means Ior agriculture. The increasing sale oI drip system
in the reduced subsidy regime is also an indicator oI Iarmer`s reducing dependence on
subsidy and they are now ready to pay higher amount Ior improved technology. But
considering the economic condition oI average Indian Iarmer, the Iollowing would be
helpIul Ior irrigation companies and the government at various levels, in promoting
micro irrigation:

To the average Iarmer, Iinance is a major problem. So, companies should come up
with some solutions like tie-up with banks, Iinancial institutions, etc. to provide easy
loans to the Iarmers. The limit oI Rs. 50,000 on getting loans without collateral should
be increased to Rs. one lakh or the redeemable value oI the micro irrigation
equipment and lease Iinancing Ior micro irrigation by the manuIacturing Iirms to
provide credit support, like in the case oI a car, should be promoted (FICCI, 2004).
PreIerence should be given in the matter oI bank loans Ior digging wells and
electricity connection to those opting Ior drip irrigation.

In the drip irrigation technique, labour saving on land preparation is a major beneIit
which Iarmers have not yet realized. Irrigation companies should highlight this beneIit
to attract customers Ior their products.

The companies should ensure quality components like drippers, emitting pipes, Iilters,
etc., so that Iarmers Iace no major technical problems like system clogging, which
aIIect their motivation on drip irrigation (Chopra and Moshawir, 2004).

The decreasing subsidy indicates that low cost would be key Iactor Ior survival in the
Iuture. ThereIore, companies should come up with more cost eIIective products and
business strategies (Sengupta et al, 2004).

AIter sales service to the Iarmers is a must to enable them to derive the maximum
beneIits that drip irrigation technology can oIIer to them (Sakthivadivel and
Bhamoriya, 2004). Surprisingly, 37 Iarmers did not receive any aIter sales service,
another 20 only need based and another 11 agronomical, technical and
252
acidiIication services. Only large players like Jain, NetaIim and Prixit provided some
aIter sales services, not the local companies. No Iarmer was getting aIter sale services
beIore the GGRCL intervention. GGRCL has included the aIter sale services,
especially agronomical and technical (repair and maintenance) in its MIS package
being oIIered to Iarmers who are availing subsidy. Companies were very poor in
providing agronomical services but good in providing technical services. This was
mainly because local dealers were responsible Ior technical services while
agronomical services were provided by the respective company. Companies appointed
agronomists on workload basis. These agronomists had to cover larger area under
their jurisdiction and hence sometimes they could not visit all client Iarmers` Iarms
but provide telephonic services to the Iarmers. They prepared and Iollowed their own
schedule oI visit as a part oI their routine job responsibilities. Many companies lack
adequate number oI agronomists.

There is need Ior educating the Iarmer that the plant can do with less water than
provided to the plant in conventional Iurrow irrigation. Farmers need to be educated
through extension services and publicity on the eIIectiveness oI drip irrigation,
especially, Ior narrow spaced crops like sugarcane, cotton, etc. Micro irrigation
equipment manuIacturing companies should be involved intensively in promoting the
method through Irequent Iield demonstrations at the Iarms. Word oI mouth and
demonstration are the biggest promotional strategies in the industry (Chopra and
Moshawir, 2004). What is needed is a promotion at the grassroots to change
perceptions and educate Iarmers on how the drip can beneIit them apart Irom water
saving.

Rather than advertisement, personal selling is a more eIIective way oI MIS marketing
(Chopra and Moshawir, 2004). Farmers should be educated on concomitant use oI
liquid Iertilizers through pipe network and their reservations on system clogging
should be dispelled through Irequent demonstrations. Further, importance oI liquid
Iertilizer in increasing input eIIiciency and bringing down the cost oI cultivation
should be clearly brought home by eIIective extension (Narayanamoorty, 1997).

Pepsee systems are not complete substitutes Ior highly sophisticated drip
technologies. Though returns oIIered by micro-tubes and drip kits are higher that
253
those oIIered by Pepsee, Pepsee systems are viewed as a 'stepping stone to
adoption oI a higher degree oI sophistication and higher cost technologies and iI these
technologies are designed in such a way that the transition is made simple and
modular, the results can be very positive. Thus, as the Iarmers are convinced about the
results, become Iamiliar with the technology and possibly also improve their Iinancial
status in the process, they will shiIt to the more eIIicient technologies being marketed
today (Verma et al, 2004).



























254
References

Anonymous (2003): 'Energy EIIiciency in Indian Agriculture, available at:
http://www.renewingindia.org/eeIagri.html.
Anonymous (2004a):'India ranks second next to US in Drip Irrigation Coverage .,
Agriculture Todav, 7(6), 40.
Anonymous (2004b): 'Locked Horns: Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project,
Agriculture Todav, 7(6), 42-43.
Balishter, and N P Singh (1997): 'Economics oI Tractor Use in Agriculture, Productivitv,
38 (3).
Behr, C. and G Naik (1999): 'Applying Micro-irrigation in the Himalaya: A Case Study on
IDE`s Experience,
http://www.mtnIorum.org/resources/library/behrx99a.htm
Bhatia, B M (1987): Towards a Solution of Punjab Problem- Restructuring and
Diversification of State Economy, Centre Ior Policy Research, New Delhi.
CACL (2004):'Macro Future oI Micro Irrigation Industry, Agriculture Todav, 7(6), 58-59.
Chopra and Moshawir (2004): Marketing Strategy and Practices in the Micro-
Irrigation Systems Industry, MTS study (unpublished), IWMI-TATA
Water Policy Program, V.V. Nagar, Gujarat.
Chopra K and S Bathla (2004): 'Water Use in the Punjab Region: ConIlicts and
Frameworks Ior Resolution, in A Vaidyanathan and H M Oudshoom (eds.):
Managing Water Scarcitv-Experiences and Prospects, IPDAP and Manohar,
New Delhi, 97-118.
EPW (Economic and Political Weeklv) (2003): 'Tractor Industry Due Ior restructuring,
38(43), October 25, 4497.
FICCI (2004): Presentation to the Planning Commission on Priority Areas for Agri
policy Reforms/Investment, by FICCI Task Force on Agriculture, FICCI,
New Delhi, 2004.
Finolex (2004): About us`, available at: http://www.Iinolex.com
Gandhi, V P and N T Patel (1997):'Are Tractors Rising in Importance? Examination oI
the Growth oI Tractor Demand and Industry in India, in Bhupat M Desai
(ed.): Agricultural Development Paradigm for the Ninth Plan under the New
Economic Environment, OxIord & IBH, New Delhi.
GoP (Govt. oI Punjab) (2005): Statistical Abstract of Punfab, 2004, Economic Adviser to
Govt. oI Punjab, Economic and Statistical Organisation (ESO), Publication
No. 905, Chandigarh, February.
HBL (The Hindu Business Line), (2007): 'Out oI Iavour?, The Hindu Business Line,
Mumbai, April 25.
ICRA (n.d.): 'Tractors: The Indian Market (Chapter 7), in The Indian Automobile
Industrv- ICRA Industry Watch Series.
IASRI (2006): Studv relating to formulating long term mechani:ation strategv for each
agro-climatic :one/state in India, Indian Agricultural Statistics Research
Institute (IASRI), New Delhi, August, Final Report.
Jackson, C and N Rao (2004): Understanding Gender and Agrarian change under
Liberalisation. The case of India, United Nations Research Institute Ior
Social Development (UNRISD) report, prepared Ior the UNRISD report on
Gender equity: Striving Ior Justice in an Unequal World, December 3, DraIt.
Jain, A (2004a): 'The Services` component is indispensable Irom the product.,
Agriculture Todav, Vol. (7), 46-47.
Jain, A (2004b): 'Welcome competition, Agriculture Todav, 7(6), 48-49.
255
Jha, D (2001): 'Agricultural Research and Small Farms, Presidential Address at the
60th Annual Convocation oI the ISAE, Kalyani (WB), January 22-24.
Jha P C (2005): 'Drip Irrigation: Bottlenecks in Technology Dissemination, Agriculture
Todav, Vol. 8 (1), 38.
JISL (2004): About us. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited (JISL), Available at:
http://www.jains.com/company/index.htm
Kaur, S (2004): Growth and Structure of Agricultural Machinery Industry of India, M
Phil. Thesis, Punjabi University, Patiala, Deptt. oI Economics.
Khanna, M (2004): 'Drip Irrigation Systems in India: Potential and Prospects, Agriculture
Todav, Vol. (7), 36-38.
Kumar, M D, T Shah, M Bhatt and M Kapadia (2004): Dripping Water to a Water
Guzzler? - A techno-economic evaluation of efficiency of drip irrigation
in Alfalfa, paper presented at the IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program
Annual Partners` Meet, 2004.
Luhach, M S, R K Khatkar, V K Singh and R S Khatry (2004): 'Economic Analysis oI
Sprinkler and Drip Irrigation Technology in Haryana, Agricultural
Economics Research Review, 17, 107-113.
Mehta, MM (2007): 'Public-Private Partnership in Mechanising Indian Agriculture Ior
Second Green Revolution, in S Ayyappan, P Chandra and S K Tandon
(eds.): Agricultural Transformation through Public-private Partnership- An
interface, ICAR. March, 19-20.
Michael, A.M. and T P Ojha (1997): Application of Irrigation Water- Principles of
Agricultural Engineering, Jol. II, Jain Brothers Publication, 278 352.
Mruthyunjay, M S (2004): 'Agenda beIore the government Ior promoting micro-
irrigation, Agriculture Todav, 7 (6), 33.
Murthy, N R (1999): 'Growth oI Tractor Industry in India, Agro India, December.
Namara R E, R K Nagar and B Upadhyay (2004): Drivers of Micro-irrigation Adoption:
Empirical Results from Selected Villages of Gujarat and Maharashtra
States, paper presented at the IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program Annual
Partners` Meet.
Naqvi, N A, (2004): 'Prosperity behind the crops, Agriculture Todav, 7 (10), 22-32.
Narayanamoorthy, A (1997): 'Drip Irrigation: A Viable Option Ior Future Irrigation
Development, Productivitv, 38(3), 504-511.
Narayanamoorthy, A (2004): 'Impact Assessment oI Drip Irrigation in India: The Case oI
Sugarcane, Development Policv Review, 22(4), 443-462.
NetaIim (2004): Drip Irrigation - Products and Solutions. Available at:
http://www.netaIim.com/index.php3?page139
NABARD (1992): Financing of Tractors in Mehsana and Rafkot Districts-Gufarat State-
An ex-post evaluation studv, Evaluation study series No. 4, NABARD,
Ahmedabad.
NABARD (1994): Tractorisation in Harvana An ex-post evaluation studv, Evaluation
Study Series No. Chandigarh 3, NABARD, Punjab and Haryana Regional
OIIice, Chandigarh.
NABARD (2005): Tractor Financing in Kaithal and Faridabad Districts in Harvana An
ex-post evaluation studv, Evaluation Study Series No. Chandigarh 17,
NABARD, Punjab and Haryana Regional OIIice, Chandigarh, March.
NABARD (2005a): Combine Harvesters in Tiruvallur and Salem Districts of Tamil Nadu-
An Evaluation Studv, Evaluation Study Series No. Chennai 16, NABARD,
TN Regional OIIice, Chennai.
256
Phansalkar, S.J and Verma, S. (2006). 'II micro-irrigation is a silver bullet, why does it not
sell more? Paper presented at the Annual Partners` Meet oI the IWMI-Tata
Water Policy Program, Anand, 8-10 March.
Pillai, P M (2000):'Industrial Clusters under DuressCoimbatore Pump ManuIacturers and
Liberalisation, Economic and Political Weeklv, 35(48), 4207-4215.
Raghuram, G (2000): Farmaid Tractors Limited, a case (IIMA/QM 242), IIM, Ahmedabad,
revised December 2004.
Ranganathan, G S (2003): 'Water Matters, Times Agriculture Journal, 2(4), June, 16-18.
Sakthivadivel, R and V Bhamoriya (2004): The Case of Micro Irrigation -Does it really
save water? Evidence from Maikaal (Nimar Valley) Cotton Growers,
paper presented at the IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program Annual Partners`
Meet.
Sally, M and M Parameswaran (2007): 'Farmers ride tailor-made tractors now, in The
Economic Times, December 1, Ahmedabad, p. 10.
Sengupta, A, A Agrawal, S A Manikandan and S Vohra (2004): Evaluation of Pricing
and Promotional Efforts to Popularize Micro Irrigation Systems, A
project report submitted in the partial requirement oI the course: Marketing
of Agricultural Inputs, PGP-ABM, IIMA.
Sharma and Kumar (2004): 'The Oasis in Making Micro Irrigation in Rajasthan,
Agriculture Todav, 7 (6), 44-45.
Sharma, M and DK Grover (1998):'Determinants oI Demand Ior Tractors A Comparative
Study oI India and Punjab, Journal of Agricultural Development and
Policv, 10(1).
Shrestha R B and C Gopalakrishnan (1993): 'Adoption and DiIIusion oI Drip Irrigation
Technology: An Econometric Analysis, Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 41(2), 407-418.
Sidhu, H S (2002):'Crisis in Agrarian Economy in Punjab - Some Urgent Steps,
Economic and Political Weeklv, 37 (30) July 27, 3132-3138.
Singh, J and P S Sidhu (1990): 'Punjab Agriculture Investment in Tractors, Productivitv,
31 (2).
Singh, Joginder and J S Kolar (1998): 'Why Iarmers are Iorced to sell tractors?, The
Tribune, Chandigarh, June 6, p. 12.
Singh, K, K Vatta and S Kumar (2008): 'Training and Testing Iacilities Ior Farm
Machinery, in R S Deshpande et al (eds.): Glimpses of Indian Agriculture-
macro and micro aspects, Vol. 1-Macro Aspects, Academic Foundation,
New Delhi, chapter 30, 539-561.
Singh, K and S Kalra (2002):'Rice Production in Punjab Systems, Varietal Diversity,
Growth and Sustainability, Economic and Political Weeklv, 37 (30) July 27,
3139-3148.
Singh L. and V. Jain (2007): 'Growth and Dynamics oI unorganized industries in Punjab,
International Journal of Business and Globali:ation 1, (1), 60-87.
Singh, S (2000): 'Crisis in Punjab Agriculture, Economic and Political Weeklv, 35(23), June
3-9.
Singh, S (2004): Rural Marketing- focus on agricultural inputs, Vikas, New Delhi.
Talathi, J M and G K Hiremath (2004): 'Technical and Water Use EIIiciency in Methods oI
Irrigation in Thane District oI Maharashtra, Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 17, 115-124.
Task Force on Micro Irrigation (2004):
http://agricoop.nic.in/horttaskIorce/taskIorceIront.htm

257
Venkateshwarlu, J (n.d.): Contextualisation of Agricultural Research for Smallholders,
a paper accessed on August 18, 2006.
Venugopal, P (2004): Input Management, under the series: State of the Indian Farmer-A
Millennium Studv, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, Vol. 8.
Verma, S, S Tsephal and T Jose (2004): 'Pepsee systems: grassroots innovation under
groundwater stress, Water Policv, 6, 303318.